Hamilton County Judges Case Analysis

SUBMITED BY

FAS group 27 AA1

ADITI REDDY (21F505)

ASEEM SHARMA (21F517)

KUSHIK DUBEY (21F534)

A T SIVASARAVANAN (21F555)

YASHWI KHANDELWAL (21F562)

Answer to Question a.
total no . of cases reversed
Probability of case being appealed and reversed =
total no .of cases disposed

For Common Appeal Court = 0.00453

For Domestic Court = 0.00056

For Municipal Court = 0.00096

*The total no. of cases being both appealed and reversed is the same as the no. of cases
reversed, since the intersection of the cases appealed and reversed is the same as the no. of
cases reversed (i.e. the no. of cases reversed is a subset of the no. of cases appealed)

Answer to Question b,c,d,e.

no . of cases appealed
Probability of case being appealed =
no . of cases disposed

no . of casesreversed
Probability of case being reversed =
no . of casesdisposed

Probability of Case being Reversed

Probability of reversal given appeal =
Probability of Case being Appealed

Comm Judge Dispos Appeal Probabili Revers Probabili Probabili Ran

on ed ed ty of case ed ty of case ty of k
appeal being being reversal
court appealed reversed given
appeal
Thomas 3000 121 0.040333 6 0.002 0.049586 1
Nurre 333 777
Robert 3138 127 0.040471 7 0.002230 0.055118 2
Kraft 638 72 11
Ralph 3089 88 0.028488 6 0.001942 0.068181 3
Winkler 184 376 818
Thomas 3372 119 0.035290 10 0.002965 0.084033 4
Crush 629 599 613
Fred 3037 137 0.045110 12 0.003951 0.087591 5
Cartolano 306 268 241
John 2969 129 0.043448 12 0.004041 0.093023 6
O'Connor 973 765 256
Ann 3141 127 0.040432 13 0.004138 0.102362 7
Marie 983 809 205
Tracey
Arthur 3219 125 0.038831 14 0.004349 0.112 8
Ney Jr. 935 177
Timothy 1954 60 0.030706 7 0.003582 0.116666 9
Hogan 244 395 667
 Richard 3353 137 0.040858 16 0.004771 0.116788 10
Niehaus 932 846 321
Robert 3205 145 0.045241 18 0.005616 0.124137 11
Ruehlma 81 225 931
n
Norbert 2959 131 0.044271 20 0.006759 0.152671 12
Nadel 713 04 756
J. 955 60 0.062827 10 0.010471 0.166666 13
Howard 225 204 667
Sunderm
ann Jr.
Patrick 1258 44 0.034976 8 0.006359 0.181818 14
Dinkelac 153 3 182
ker
William 3032 121 0.039907 22 0.007255 0.181818 14
Morrisse 652 937 182
y
William 2264 91 0.040194 18 0.007950 0.197802 15
Mathews 346 53 198
Total 43945 1762 0.040095 199      
574

Domest Judge Dispos Appeal Probabili Revers Pobabilit Probabili ran

ic ed ed ty of case ed y of case ty of k
Court being being reversal
appealed reversed given
appeal
Ronald 12970 32 0.002467 3 0.000231 0.09375 1
Panioto 232 303
Penelope 2729 7 0.002565 1 0.000366 0.142857 2
Cunningh 042 435 143
am
Deborah 8799 48 0.005455 9 0.001022 0.1875 3
Gaines 165 844
Patrick 6001 19 0.003166 4 0.000666 0.210526 4
Dinkelac 139 556 316
ker
Total 30499 106 0.003475 17    
524

Munici Judge Dispos Appeal probabili Revers probabili probabili ran

pal ed ed ty of case ed ty of case ty of k
Court being being reversal
appealed reversed given
appeal
Karla 5253 6 0.001142 0 0 0 1
Grady 204
Deidra 2532 5 0.001974 0 0 0 1
Hair 724
Beth 2971 13 0.004375 1 0.000336 0.076923 3
Mattingly 631 587 077
Mike 6149 43 0.006993 4 0.000650 0.093023 4
Allen 007 512 256
David 7736 43 0.005558 5 0.000646 0.116279 5
Davis 428 329 07
Timothy 7954 41 0.005154 6 0.000754 0.146341 6
Black 639 337 463
Timothy 2308 13 0.005632 2 0.000866 0.153846 7
Hogan 582 551 154
James 2798 6 0.002144 1 0.000357 0.166666 8
Patrick 389 398 667
Kenney
Dennis 7900 29 0.003670 5 0.000632 0.172413 9
Helmick 886 911 793
Nadine 7812 34 0.004352 6 0.000768 0.176470 10
Allen 279 049 588
David 5371 22 0.004096 4 0.000744 0.181818 11
Stockdale 071 74 182
Mark 5403 33 0.006107 6 0.001110 0.181818 11
Schweike 718 494 182
rt
Melba 8219 34 0.004136 7 0.000851 0.205882 13
Marsh 756 685 353
William 8277 38 0.004591 9 0.001087 0.236842 14
Mallory 035 35 105
Jack 7790 41 0.005263 13 0.001668 0.317073 15
Rosen 158 806 171
Joseph 4698 25 0.005321 8 0.001702 0.32 16
Luebbers 413 852
Albert 4975 28 0.005628 9 0.001809 0.321428 17
Mestema 141 045 571
ker
Leslie 5282 35 0.006626 13 0.002461 0.371428 18
Isaiah 278 189 571
Gaines
Mark 2239 7 0.003126 3 0.001339 0.428571 19
Painter 396 884 429
John A. 2797 4 0.001430 2 0.000715 0.5 20
West 104 052
Total 10846 500 0.004609 104    
4 824
The case of Patrick Dinkelacker and Timothy Hogan

Probability Probability Probability

of case of case of reversal
Dispose Appeale Reverse being being given
  d d d appealed reversed appeal
Patrick Dinkelacker            
Common Appeals
Court 1258 44 8
Domestic Court 6001 19 4  
Total for all 0.0086788 0.0016531 0.1904761
Judgements 7259 63 12 81 2 9
Timothy Hogan            
Common Appeals
Court 1954 60 7
Municipal Court 2308 13 2  
Total for all 0.0171281 0.0021116 0.1232876
Judgements 4262 73 9 09 85 71

REPORT

Hamilton County judges try thousands of cases per year. In an overwhelming majority of the
cases disposed, the verdict stands as rendered. However, some cases are appealed, and of
those appealed, some of the cases are reversed. Over a three year period, 182,908 cases were
handled by 38 judges in the Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Court, and Municipal
Court. Two of the judges, Dinkelacker and Hogan, did not serve in the same court for the
entire three year period.

Appeals are often the result of mistakes made by judges, and we want to know which judges
were doing a good job and which were making too many mistakes. In this report, we are
going to describe the basic statistics for each of the three courts. We will also find and show
the probability of cases being appealed and reversed in the three different courts, for each
judge, and finally we will show the probability of a reversal given that an appeal has been
made for each judge.
In common Pleas Court 1,762 of these cases were appealed, and then 199 of them were
reversed. The maximum number of cases disposed by a single judge was 3,372 while the
minimum was 955. The maximum number of appealed cases by a single judge was 145,
while the minimum was 44. Then, the maximum number of reversed cases by a single judge
was 22, with the minimum being 6 cases reversed.

For Domestic Relations Court, There are only 4 judges in this specific court. From those
judges, a total of 30,499 cases were disposed over the three year period. 106 of those cases
were appealed, and 17 were reversed total. The maximum number of cases handled by a
single judge was 12,970 cases. The maximum number of cases appealed by a single judge
was 48, and the maximum number of cases reversed by a single judge was 9. The minimum
number of cases that a judge handled was 2,729, while appealed was 7, and reversed was
only 1.

For Municipal Court, Over the three year period 18 judges handled 94,503 cases together in
total. 423 of those cases were appealed, and 94 of those appealed were reversed. The
maximum number of cases that a single judge handled 8,277 cases alone, with the minimum
being 2,239. The maximum number of appealed cases by a single judge was 43 cases, while
the minimum was 4 cases. The maximum number of reversed cases by a single judge was 13
cases and also there are two instances where no case was reversed.

Ranking of Judges is done on the basis of Probability of case being reversed given appeal of
each judge i.e. the judge with the lowest value being rank 1 and so on.