# Hamilton County Judges

Topics: Court, Appeal, Judge Pages: 5 (1955 words) Published: August 24, 2011
Hamilton County Judges 1 Hamilton County Judges try thousands of cases each year within the three major court systems of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations, and Municipal Court. This is an in depth look at the total cases disposed, appealed, and reversed over a three year measurement period. The purpose of this is to determine the effectiveness of the 38 judges as a whole and on an individual level with a sample case size is 182,908 total cases over the three year measurement period. The overall data should assist in determining which judges and courts have a greater efficiency than others. Efficiency in this paper is determined by how many cases are appealed, reversed, or a combination of the two stated variables used in combination to help determine the amount of potential errors that the sample judges have made.

1.Based on the data provided in the Hamilton County Judge case study the actual probability of cases being appealed or appealed and reversed are as follows. a. Common Pleas Court disposed 43, 945 total cases and had the following probability

of either being appealed or appealed and reversed. i. Total cases appealed were 1,762 or 4.01% ii. Total cases that were appealed that resulted in a reversal was 11.29% b. Domestic Relations Court disposed 30,499 total cases and had the following probability of either being appealed or appealed and reversed. iii. Total cases appealed were 106 or .35% iv. Total cases that were appealed that resulted in a reversal was 16.04% c. Municipal Court disposed 108,464 total cases and had the following probability of either being appealed or appealed and reversed. v. Total cases appealed were 500 or .46% Hamilton County Judges 2 vi. Total cases that were appealed that resulted in a reversal was 20.80% d. All Courts combined disposed 182,908 total cases and had the following probability of either being appealed or appealed and reversed. vii. Total cases appealed were 2368 or 1.29% viii. Total cases that were appealed that resulted in a reversal was 13.51% 2.Based on the data provided in the Hamilton County Judge case study the actual probability of cases by judge being appealed are as follows. Common Pleas Court: Judge Appeal by Judge (P) Appeal by Judge (%) Fred Cartolano 0.04511 4.51% Thomas Crush 0.035291 3.53% Patrick Dinkelacker 0.034976 3.50% Timothy Hogan 0.030706 3.07% Robert Kraft 0.040472 4.05% William Mathews 0.040194 4.02% William Morrissey 0.039908 3.99% Norbert Nadel 0.044272 4.43% Arthur Ney Jr. 0.038832 3.88% Richard Niehaus 0.040859 4.09% Thomas Nurre 0.040333 4.03% John O'Connor 0.043449 4.34% Robert Ruehlman 0.045242 4.52% J. Howard Sundermann Jr. 0.062827 6.28% Ann Marie Tracey 0.040433 4.04% Ralph Winkler 0.028488 2.85% Domestic Relations Court: Judge Appeal by Judge (P) Appeal by Judge (%) Penelope Cunningham 0.002565 0.26% Hamilton County Judges 3 Patrick Dinkelacker 0.003166 0.32% Deborah Gaines 0.005455 0.55% Ronald Panioto 0.002467 0.25% Municipal Court: Judge Appeal by Judge (P) Appeal by Judge (%) Mike Allen 0.006993 0.70% Nadine Allen 0.004352 0.44% TimothyBlack 0.005155 0.52% David Davis 0.005558 0.56% Leslie Isaiah Gaines 0.006626 0.66% Karla Grady 0.001142 0.11% Deidra Hair 0.001975 0.20% Dennis Helmick 0.003671 0.37% Timothy Hogan 0.005633 0.56% James Patrick Kenney 0.002144 0.21% Joseph Luebbers 0.005321 0.53% William Mallory 0.004591 0.46% Melba Marsh 0.004137 0.41% Beth Mattingly 0.004376 0.44% Albert Mestemaker 0.005628 0.56% Mark Painter 0.003126 0.31% Jack Rosen 0.005263 0.53% Mark Schweikert 0.006108 0.61% David Stockdale 0.004096 0.41% John A. West 0.00143 0.14% 3.Based on the data provided in the Hamilton County Judge case study the actual probabilities of cases by judge receiving a reversal are as follows. Common Pleas Court: Judge Reversal per Judge (P) Reversal per Judge (%) Fred Cartolano 0.003951 0.40% Thomas Crush 0.002966 0.30% Patrick Dinkelacker 0.006359 0.64% Timothy Hogan 0.003582 0.36% Hamilton County Judges 4 Robert Kraft...