Case Study Hamilton County Judges

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 1746
  • Published : June 17, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the performance of the Hamilton county judges, in three different courts. The data is compiled from information gathered over a three year period and includes a total of 182,908 cases handled by 38 judges in Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Court, and Municipal Court. The information presented should help determine how many cases have been appealed, reversed, or a combination of stated variables which will help determine the amount of errors made by judges. The judges will also be ranked in order of efficiency, as to how they appropriately handle each case. The information found is as follows:

Given the data in the sample of Hamilton County Judges the probability of cases being appealed and reversed in all three different courts is presented below.

Common Pleas Court disposed 43, 945 total cases. The total number of cases appealed was 1,762, and the total number of cases reversed was 199. In all cases disposed in the Common Pleas Court, the probability of cases could be appealed and reversed is:

Total reversed cases/ Total appealed cases= 199/1762= 0.11294 or 11.2% Domestic Relations court disposed a total of 30,499 cases. The total number of cases appealed was 106, and the total number of cases reversed was 17. In all cases disposed in the Domestic Relations Court, the probability of cases could be appealed and reversed is:

Total reversed cases/ Total appealed cases=17/106= 0.16037 or 16%

Municipal Court disposed of a total of 108,464. The total number of cases they appealed was 500, and the total number of cases reversed was 104. In all cases disposed in the Municipal Court, the probability of cases could be appealed and reversed is:

Total reversed cases/ Total appealed cases=104/500= 0.2080 or 20.8%

Given the data in the sample of Hamilton County Judges the probability of cases being appealed by each judge in each of the three court branches is presented below.

COMMON PLEAS COURT

JUDGE PROBABILITY OF APPEAL

Fred Cartolano 0.04511 or 4.51%

Thomas Crush 0.035291 or 3.53%

Patrick Dinkelacker 0.034976 or 3.50%

Timothy Hogan 0.030706 or 3.07%

Robert Kraft 0.040472 or 4.05%

William Mathews 0.040194 or 4.02%

William Morrissey 0.039908 or 3.99% 

Norbert Nadel 0.044272 or 4.43%

Robert Ruehlman 0.045242 or 4.52%

J. Howard Sundermann Jr. 0.062827 or 6.28%

Ann Marie Tracey 0.040433 or 4.04%

Ralph Winkler 0.028488 or 2.85%

Arthur Ney Jr. 0.038832 or 3.88%

Richard Niehaus 0.040859 or 4.09%

Thomas Nurre 0.040333 or 4.03%

John O'Connor 0.043449 or 4.34%

DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT

JUDGE PROBABILITY OF APPEAL

Penelope Cunningham 0.002565 or 0.26%

Patrick Dinkelacker 0.003166 or 0.32%

Deborah Gaines 0.005455 or 0.55%

Ronald Panioto 0.002467 or 0.25%

MUNICIPAL COURT

JUDGE PROBABILITY OF APPEAL

Mike Allen 0.006993 or 0.70% 
Nadine Allen 0.004352 or 0.44%
Timothy Black 0.005155 or 0.52%
David Davis 0.005558 or 0.56%
Leslie Isaiah Gaines 0.006626 or 0.66%
Karla Grady 0.001142 or 0.11%
Deidra Hair 0.001975 or 0.20%
Dennis Helmick 0.003671 or 0.37%
Timothy Hogan 0.005633 or 0.56%
James Patrick Kenney 0.002144 or 0.21%
Joseph Luebbers 0.005321 or 0.53%
William Mallory 0.004591 or 0.46%
Melba Marsh 0.004137 or 0.41%
Beth Mattingly 0.004376 or 0.44%
Albert Mestemaker 0.005628 or 0.56%
Mark Painter 0.003126 or 0.31%
Jack Rosen 0.005263 or 0.53%
Mark Schweikert 0.006108 or 0.61%
David Stockdale 0.004096 or 0.41%
John A. West 0.00143 or 0.14%

Given the data in the sample of Hamilton County Judges the probability of cases being reversed by each judge in each of the three court branches is...
tracking img