...Case Problem: Hamilton County Judges Three major court systems in Hamilton County were reviewed in depth, and case information from the Common Pleas, Domestic Relations, and Municipal Courts were reviewed. This study compiles information from 38 Judges who had a total of 182,908 cases presented to them over a three year period. This study shows the number of cases that were disposed, appealed, and reversed. This study is to aid in determining which judges have a greater proficiency trying cases and their verdicts stand as rendered, rather than the verdicts being appealed or reversed. Each judges case load was reviewed and the statistics were determined by how many cases have been appealed, reversed or a conjunction of both. This information will help determine the judges who have made the least, as well as the most errors, while serving in the Hamilton County Court System over the three year period. This study will show that for all the disposed cases in the Hamilton County Court System during the 3 year evaluation period, the Common Pleas Court the probability of a case being appealed and reversed is 0.1129 (11.29%); Domestic Relations Courts probability of a case being appealed and reversed is 0.1604 (16.04%); Municipal Court probability of a case being appealed and reversed is 0.2080(20.80%). The probability of a case being appealed, per judge is: (P) indicating Probability Common Pleas Court Judges: (P) of Appeal per Judge (P) of Reversal per Judge (P) of Reversal...
Words: 1167 - Pages: 5
... 2012 Subject: Case #2, Hamilton County Judges Introduction In an effort to better evaluate the performances of the judges of Hamilton County, the Cincinnati Enquirer hired the firm of DLS to investigate the courts. DLS examined all cases disposed, appealed, and reversed in Common Pleas, Domestic Relations, and Municipal Courts over a three year period. The data provided to the investigators consisted of 182,908 cases handled (disposed) by 38 judges. The investigating team of DLS assessed rankings based on the performances of the judges. Methodology The investigators from DLS used the table provided to assist in the data analysis. Excel was the primary software used for the case. Tables were formed to show the probabilities of appealed and reversed cases. The tables included information from all three courts and provided probabilities of reversed cases, appealed cases, and reversed given appealed cases. Tables and bar charts were used to designate the rankings of the judges’ performances. The bar charts contained data of the probability of appealed or reversed cases. Results From the data collected (see Appendix A, Table 1) analysis was conducted. The judges were each given a probability of cases appealed, reversed, and reversed given appealed. The judges were then ranked based on the probabilities in the different courts. Table 1.2 covers the Common Pleas Court and in this table the team of DLS provides the ranking of each judge based on the probability...
Words: 966 - Pages: 4
...Hamilton County Judges Review Midterm Project All the Hamilton County Judges in their three courts Common Pleas, Domestic Relations and also Municipal Court, have all been accessed and placed in ranking. After analyzing the data I have discovered how many cases have been appealed and reversed within each court. The probability of cases being appealed or reversed in the Common Pleas Court is 0.1129, In the Domestic Relations Court the Probability is 0.1604 and lastly the in the Municipal Court the probability of the case being appealed or reversed is 0.2080. Next in my analysis I found the probability of cases being appealed per judge and court: * Common Court * Fred Cartolano 0.045110 * Thomas Crush 0.035291 * Patrick Dinkelacker 0.034976 * Timothy Hogan 0.030706 * Robert Kraft 0.040472 * William Mathews 0.040194 * William Morrissey 0.039908 * Norbert Nadel 0.044272 * Arthur Ney Jr. 0.038832 * Richard Niehaus 0.040859 * Thomas Nurre 0.040333 * John O'Connor 0.043449 * Robert Ruehlman 0.045242 * J. Howard Sundermann Jr. 0.062827 * Ann Marie Tracey 0.040433 * Ralph Winkler 0.028488 * Domestic Relations Court: * Penelope Cunningham 0.002565 * Patrick Dinkelacker 0.003166 * Deborah Gaines 0.005455 * Ronald Panioto 0.002467 * Municipal Court: * Mike Allen 0.006993 * Nadine Allen 0.004352 * Timothy Black 0.005155 * David...
Words: 821 - Pages: 4
...Case information for three Hamilton County Court systems were reviewed in depth and case information from the Common Pleas, Domestic Relations, and Municipal courts were submitted for review. This review complied information from 38 judges who had a total of 182,908 cases presented to them over a three year period. This review showed the number of cases that were disposed, appealed, and their verdicts reversed. The review was to assist in determining which judges have a greater proficiency trying cases and their verdicts stand as rendered rather than the verdicts being appealed or reversed. Each judge’s case load was reviewed and the statistics were determined by how many cases have been appealed, reversed or a combination of both. The below information will assist in determining which judges have made the most along with the least incorrect verdicts during the three year period reviewed. This review will show that for all the disposed cases during the evaluation period the probability of a case being appealed and reversed in the Common Pleas Court was 0.1129 (11.29%); Domestic Relations court probability of a case being appealed and reversed was 0.1604 (16.04%); Municipal Court probability of a case being appealed and reversed was 0.2080 (20.80%). The probability of a case being appealed for the Common Pleas Court, per judge is below: Judge | Appeal Per Judge | Reversed Per Judge | Reversal of Appeal Per Judge | Fred Cartolano | 0.04511 | 0.003951 | 0.087591...
Words: 962 - Pages: 4
...Hamilton County Judges Effectiveness Study Prepared by Team 32 Prepared for Dr. Norman Lewis BA 2300 Statistics 1 This study is designed to provide the efficiency status of 38 Hamilton County Judges. The study looked at the number of cases disposed, appealed and reversed. The information gathered is from data for the Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Court and Municipal Court. Two of the judges, Patrick Dinkelacker and Timothy Hogan served in two different courts during the three year study period. This report will show the efficiency of all 38 judges as a whole and as individuals. There were 182,908 total cases disposed during the study with 2,368 were appealed and 320 decisions being reversed. Based on the data provided in the Hamilton County Judges study the following probabilities were found: A. Common Pleas Court disposed 43,945 cases disposed equaling 24% 1,762 cases appealed equaling 4.01% 199 cases reversed equaling .49% B. Domestic Relations Court 30,499 cases disposed equaling 17% 106 cases appealed equaling 3.36% 17 cases reversed equaling .06% C. Municipal Court 108,908 cases disposed equaling 59% 500 cases appealed equaling .44% 104 cases reversed equaling .09% Court Cases Common Court 24% Municipal Court 59% Domestic Court 17% Distribution of Total Cases Disposed by Court The probability of appeal by judge for each court is as follows: A. Common Pleas Court Judge Fred Cartolano Thomas Crush Patrick Dinkelacker Timothy Hogan Robert Kraft...
Words: 1525 - Pages: 7
...Case: Hamilton County Judges A Review by the Company of Annette July 6, 2012 Abstract Hamilton County Judges try thousands of cases per year. This study is to provide the newspaper with how well the judges are performing. With the results of Kristen DelGuzzie of the Cinncinati Enquirer that conducted the study of the cases in Hamilton County for a three year period. Providing analytical results on how well each and every judge is doing. With the results, the Cinncinati Enquirer will be able answer the question of which judge is performing a good job and which is not performing a good job. By evaluating the results from the data collects. The company of Annette is hired to assist in the data analysis. Case: Hamilton County Judges A Review by the Company of Annette Over a period of three years, Kristen DelGuzzi of the Cinncinati Enquirer created a study to see which Judges were performing the best and worst. Appeals are the result of a mistake made by the judges. Disposed is when the judge throws out the case. And Reversed is when the judge reverses what was said during a pervious case. With this study I will being answering the following questions: 1. Who is doing a good job? 2. Who isn’t doing a good job? 3. Why does the company of Annette think so? With answering the questions. This report will also provided the results from: * The probability of cases being appealed and reversed in three different courts * The probability of a case being appealed...
Words: 3464 - Pages: 14
...CASE PROBLEM: HAMILTON COUNTY JUDGES 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. Kristen DelGuzzi of the Cincinnati Enquirer conducted a study of cases handled by Hamilton County Judges over a three-year period ( Cincinnati Enquirer, January 11, 1998 ). Shown in Table 2.5 are the results for 182,908 cases handled (disposed) by 38 Judges in 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. The purpose of the newspaper’s study was to evaluate the performance of the judges. Appeals are often the result of mistakes made by judges, and the newspaper wanted to know which judges were doing a good job and which were making too many mistakes. You have been called in to assist in the data analysis. Use your knowledge of probability to help with the ranking of the judges. You also may e able to analyze….. TABLE 2.5 CASES DISPOSED, APPEALED, AND REVERSED IN HAMILTON COUNTY COURTS Common Pleas Court Judge Total Cases Disposed Appealed Cases Reversed Cases Fred Cartolano 3,037 137 12 Thomas Crush 3,372 119 10 Patrick Dinkelacker 1,258 44 8 Timothy Hogan 1,954 60 7 Robert Kraft 3,138 127 7 William Mathews 2,264 91 18 William Morrissey 3,032 121 22 Norbert Nadel 2,959 131 20 ...
Words: 2785 - Pages: 12
...Problem 1: (25 points) 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. Kristen DelGuzzi of The Cincinnati Enquirer conducted a study of cases handled by Hamilton county judges over a three-year period. The data is in the file Judge. It contains results for 182,908 cases handled (disposed) 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. The purpose of the newspaper’s study was to evaluate the performance of the judges. Appeals are often a result of mistakes made by the judges, and the newspaper wanted to know which judges were doing a good job and which were making too many mistakes. You are called on to assist in the data analysis. Use your knowledge of probability and conditional probability to help with the ranking of judges. You may be able to analyze the likelihood of appeal and reversal for cases handled by different judges. Managerial Report: Prepare a report with your rankings of the judges. Also, include an analysis of the likelihood of appeal and case reversal in the three courts. At a minimum, your report should include the following: 1. The probability of cases being appealed and reversed in the three different courts. 2. The probability...
Words: 303 - Pages: 2
...Case Study 1 – Hamilton County Judges 1. Based on the information provided in the Hamilton County Judges’ case study, the probability of cases being appealed and reversed in the three different courts are as follows: a. For the total cases disposed in the Common Pleas Court there is a 0.1129 probability of a case being appealed and reversed. b. For the total cases disposed in the Domestic Relations Court there is a 0.1604 probability of a case being appealed and reversed. c. For the total cases disposed in the Municipal Court there is a 0.2080 probability of a case being appealed and reversed. 2. The probability of a case being appealed, per judge, is: a. Common Pleas Court: Judge | (P) of Appeal | Fred Cartolano | 0.045110 | Thomas Crush | 0.035291 | Patrick Dinkelacker | 0.034976 | Timothy Hogan | 0.030706 | Robert Kraft | 0.040472 | William Mathews | 0.040194 | William Morrissey | 0.039908 | Norbert Nadel | 0.044272 | Arthur Ney Jr. | 0.038832 | Richard Niehaus | 0.040859 | Thomas Nurre | 0.040333 | John O'Connor | 0.043449 | Robert Ruehlman | 0.045242 | J. Howard Sundermann Jr. | 0.062827 | Ann Marie Tracey | 0.040433 | Ralph Winkler | 0.028488 | b. Domestic Relations Court: Judge | (P) of Appeal | Penelope Cunningham | 0.002565 | Patrick Dinkelacker | 0.003166 | Deborah Gaines | 0.005455 | Ronald Panioto | 0.002467 | c. Municipal Court: Judge | (P) of Appeal...
Words: 879 - Pages: 4
...Community Description Fishers Indiana is the community of assessment. Fishers is a town in Hamilton County, it is located approximately 22 miles northeast of Indianapolis, the capital of Indiana. Fishers is approximately 33.59 square miles (United States Census, 2014). The first person to settle in Fishers was William Conner; he started a trading post that connected Fishers to Anderson Indiana. Anderson Indiana was connected to Connersville Indiana by Indian trail. The Indian trail connected to a state road which continued north to Fort Wayne Indiana allowing easy access for the first wave of early settlers (Fishers Indiana, 2014). In 1872 Salathiel Fisher, a property owner in Hamilton County near the railroad, divided his land into town lots. In the late 1800’s it was not unusual for individuals that owned property near railroads to split up their land to start new communities (Fishers Indiana, 2014). The Fishers town lots became known as Fishers Switch, then later as Fishers Station, and eventually The Town of Fishers (Fishers Indiana, 2014). The population of Fishers started slow. In 1960 the population was only 388 but with the relocation of highway 37 and eventually highway 37 connecting to I-69 the population began to increase (Fishers Indiana, 2014). Fishers has become a large residential and business suburb of Indianapolis with many recreational and cultural events to explore. William Connor’s land is now an interactive historical site known as Connor...
Words: 1738 - Pages: 7
...Hamilton County Judges try thousands of cases per year. This study is to provide the newspaper with how well the judges are performing. With the results of Kristen DelGuzzie of the Cincinnati Enquirer that conducted the study of the cases in Hamilton County for a three year period. Providing analytical results on how well each and every judge is doing. With the results, the Cincinnati Enquirer will be able answer the question of which judge is performing a good job and which is not performing a good job. By evaluating the results from the data collects. The company of Annette is hired to assist in the data analysis. Case: Hamilton County Judges A Review by the Company of Annette Over a period of three years, Kristen DelGuzzi of the Cincinnati Enquirer created a study to see which Judges were performing the best and worst. Appeals are the result of a mistake made by the judges. Disposed is when the judge throws out the case. And Reversed is when the judge reverses what was said during a pervious case. With this study I will being answering the following questions: 1. Who is doing a good job? 2. Who isn’t doing a good job? 3. Why does the company of Annette think so? With answering the questions. This report will also provide the results from: * The probability of cases being appealed and reversed in three different courts * The probability of a case being appealed for each judge * The probability of a case being reversed for each judge * Rank the judges within each...
Words: 1429 - Pages: 6
...To: County Newspaper From: Amber Vlaminck Date: October 5, 2012 Subject: Hamilton County Judges Introduction In this analytical Report we will be analyzing and evaluating the performance of judges of Hamilton County, based on the amount of cases that were appealed. We will be counting appealed cases as mistakes that have been committed by the judges. In this report, will we go through and determine which judges in the county are making too many mistakes. 1. The probability of a case in Hamilton County being appealed and reversed in Common Pleas Court .04462 Domestic Relations Court .00403292 Municipal Court .005556867 2. The probability of a case being appealed for each judge Common Pleas Court Judge Probability of case appealed * Fred Cartolano .04511 * Thomas Crush .03529 * Patrick Dinkelacker .03497 * Timothy Hogan .03071 * Robert Kraft .04047 * William Mathews .04019 * William Morrissey .03991 * Norbert Nadel .04427 * Arthur Ney Jr. .03883 * Richard Niehaus .04085 * Thomas Nurre .04033 * John O'Connor .04344 * Robert Ruehlman .04524 * J. Howard Sundermann .06283 * Ann Marie Tracey .04043 * Ralph Winkler .02848 Domestic Relations Court Judge Probability of case appealed Penelope Cunningham .002565 Patrick Dinkelacker .003166 Deborah...
Words: 510 - Pages: 3
...Type of Submission: Case Problem “Hamilton County Judges” BUS 440 Quantitative Business Analyses Executive Summary Hamilton County Judges try thousands of cases per year. In an alarmingly large amount of these cases that are disposed, the verdict stands as rendered. Some of these cases are appealed and sometimes won or reversed. Using the resulted for 182,908 cases handled (disposed) by 38 judges in Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Court, and Municipal Court; Kristin DelGuzzi of the Cincinnati Enquirer conducted a study of these cases handled over a 3 year time period. Two of the judges, Dinkelacker and Hogan did not serve in the same court for the entire 3 year period. The purpose of the newspapers study was to evaluate the performance of these judges. Appeals are often caused by mistakes made by judges and the newspaper wanted to find out which judges were doing a good and bad jobs. Contents PROBLEM DEFINITION 5 MODEL VERIFICATION 14 OPTIMIZATION AND DECISION MAKING 15 MODEL COMMUNICATION TO MANAGEMENT 16 MODEL IMPLEMENTATION 16 Bibliography 17 PROBLEM DEFINITION Hamilton County Judges try thousands of cases per year. In an alarmingly large amount of these cases that are disposed, the verdict stands as rendered. Some of these cases are appealed and sometimes won or reversed. Using the resulted for 182,908 cases handled (disposed) by 38 judges in Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Court, and Municipal Court; Kristin DelGuzzi of the Cincinnati...
Words: 1615 - Pages: 7
...current legal system would need to be done in order to protect the victims and combat the cost of domestic violence on the courts. As the issue of domestic violence became noticed, it started to overwhelm the legal system. In calculating the Cost of Domestic Violence on the legal system, namely the courts, you must include offender programs, the cost of recidivism, and administration. OFFENDER PROGRAMS A domestic violence court promotes a coordinated, multi-disciplinary approach to improving the criminal justice system’s response to domestic violence, family violence and child abuse. The domestic violence court specializes in a court docket handled by a dedicated judge and court staff and linked to key partners, which serves to address gaps in traditional domestic violence case processing where multiple judges and prosecutors handle various aspects of the case. Victim and child safety is paramount in developing a project and all components of a domestic violence court must keep this goal in mind. Vital components in the domestic court are the need for trained...
Words: 2701 - Pages: 11
...h J. Barnett Mr. W. Gissy Econ 2300/05 February 22, 2005 Case Study 1 – Hamilton County Judges 1. Based on the information provided in the Hamilton County Judges’ case study, the probability of cases being appealed and reversed in the three different courts are: a. For the total cases disposed in the Common Pleas Court there is a 0.1129 probability of a case being appealed and reversed. b. For the total cases disposed in the Domestic Relations Court there is a 0.1604 probability of a case being appealed and reversed. c. For the total cases disposed in the Municipal Court there is a 0.2080 probability of a case being appealed and reversed. 2. The probability of a case being appealed, per judge, is: a. Common Pleas Court: Judge Fred Cartolano Thomas Crush Patrick Dinkelacker Timothy Hogan Robert Kraft William Mathews William Morrissey Norbert Nadel Arthur Ney Jr. Richard Niehaus Thomas Nurre John O'Connor Robert Ruehlman J. Howard Sundermann Jr. Ann Marie Tracey Ralph Winkler b. Domestic Relations Court: Judge Penelope Cunningham Patrick Dinkelacker Deborah Gaines Ronald Panioto (P) of Appeal per Judge 0.002565 0.003166 0.005455 0.002467 (P) of Appeal per Judge 0.045110 0.035291 0.034976 0.030706 0.040472 0.040194 0.039908 0.044272 0.038832 0.040859 0.040333 0.043449 0.045242 0.062827 0.040433 0.028488 Barnett 2 c. Municipal Court: Judge Mike Allen Nadine Allen Timothy Black David Davis Leslie Isaiah Gaines Karla Grady Deidra Hair Dennis Helmick Timothy Hogan James Patrick...
Words: 346 - Pages: 2
