Managerial Report on Hamilton County Judge Case Analysis

MANAGERIAL REPORT

To            : Dr. Binu P Paul

From        : Akshita Akhil

Team       : 1

Date         : 09/07/2016

Subject   : Hamilton county judges

Case study analysis

This case study refers to the performance of the judges in the different courts of Hamilton County. In this case study we analyze three different courts such as Common pleas court, Domestic relations court and Municipal court. The performance of Judges is in each and every court is analyzed using probability techniques.

Probability of cases appealed and reversed

Courts	Total cases disposed	Appealed cases	Reversed cases	Probability of cases being appealed	Probability of cases being reversed
Common Pleas Court	43945	1762	199	0.0400955	0.0045283
Domestic Relations Court	30499	106	17	0.0034755	0.0005573
Municipal Court	108464	500	104	0.0046098	0.0009588

Common Pleas Court

Judges	Total cases disposed	Appealed cases	Reversed cases	Probability of cases being appealed	Rank	Probability of cases being reversed	Rank	Probability of reversal given an appeal	Rank	Total rank
Fred Cartolano	3037	137	12	0.04511031	14	0.003951268	6	0.08759124	5	25
Thomas Crush	3372	119	10	0.03529063	4	0.002965599	4	0.08403361	4	12
Patrick Dinkelacker	1258	44	8	0.03497615	3	0.0063593	12	0.18181818	14	29
Timothy Hogan	1954	60	7	0.03070624	2	0.003582395	5	0.11666667	9	16
Robert Kraft	3138	127	7	0.04047164	10	0.00223072	3	0.05511811	2	15
William Mathews	2264	91	18	0.04019435	7	0.00795053	15	0.1978022	16	38
William Morrissey	3032	121	22	0.03990765	6	0.007255937	14	0.18181818	14	34
Norbert Nadel	2959	131	20	0.04427171	13	0.00675904	13	0.15267176	12	38
Arthur Ney, Jr.	3219	125	14	0.03883194	5	0.004349177	9	0.112	8	22
Richard Niehaus	3353	137	16	0.04085893	11	0.004771846	10	0.11678832	10	31
Thomas Nurre	3000	121	6	0.04033333	8	0.002	2	0.04958678	1	11
John O'Connor	2969	129	12	0.04344897	12	0.004041765	7	0.09302326	6	25
Robert Ruehlman	3205	145	18	0.04524181	15	0.005616225	11	0.12413793	11	37
J.Howard Sundermann	955	60	10	0.06282723	16	0.010471204	16	0.16666667	13	45
Ann Marie Tracey	3141	127	13	0.04043298	9	0.004138809	8	0.1023622	7	24
Ralph Winkler	3089	88	6	0.02848818	1	0.001942376	1	0.06818182	3	5

Here the judge Thomas Nurre is the most efficient as the probability of reversal is just 0.049.

Domestic Relations Court

Judges	Total cases disposed	Appealed cases	Reversed cases	Probability of cases being appealed	Rank	Probability of cases being reversed	Rank	Probability of reversal given an appeal	Rank	Total rank
Penelope Cunningham	2729	7	1	0.002565042	2	0.000366435	2	0.142857143	2	6
Patrick Dinkelacker	6001	19	4	0.003166139	3	0.000666556	3	0.210526316	4	10
Deborah Gaines	8799	48	9	0.005455165	4	0.001022844	4	0.1875	3	11
Ronald Panioto	12970	32	3	0.002467232	1	0.000231303	1	0.09375	1	3

In the Domestic Relations court Ronald Panioto is considered to be the most efficient with the Probability of 0.093 for the case to be reversed

Municipal court

Judges	Total cases disposed	Appealed cases	Reversed cases	Probability of cases being appealed	Rank	Probability of cases being reversed	Rank	Probability of reversal given an appeal	Rank	Total rank
Mike Allen	6149	43	4	0.006993	20	0.00065051	7	0.09302326	4	31
Nadine Allen	7812	34	6	0.0043523	9	0.00076805	11	0.17647059	10	30
Timothy Black	7954	41	6	0.0051546	12	0.00075434	10	0.14634146	6	28
David Davis	7736	43	5	0.0055584	15	0.00064633	6	0.11627907	5	26
Leslie Isaiah Gaines	5282	35	13	0.0066263	19	0.00246119	20	0.37142857	18	57
Karla Grandy	5253	6	0	0.0011422	1	0	1	0	1	3
Deidra Hair	2522	5	0	0.0019826	3	0	1	0	1	5
Dennis Helmick	7900	29	5	0.0036709	6	0.00063291	5	0.17241379	9	20
Timothy Hogan	2308	13	2	0.0056326	17	0.00086655	13	0.15384615	7	37
James Patrick Kenney	2798	6	1	0.0021444	4	0.0003574	4	0.16666667	8	16
Joseph Luebbers	4698	25	8	0.0053214	14	0.00170285	18	0.32	16	48
William Mallory	8277	38	9	0.004591	11	0.00108735	14	0.23684211	14	39
Melba Marsh	8219	34	7	0.0041368	8	0.00085169	12	0.20588235	13	33
Beth Mattingly	2971	13	1	0.0043756	10	0.00033659	3	0.07692308	3	16
Albert Mestemaker	4975	28	9	0.0056281	16	0.00180905	19	0.32142857	17	52
Mark Painter	2239	7	3	0.0031264	5	0.00133988	16	0.42857143	19	40
Jack Rosen	7790	41	13	0.0052632	13	0.00166881	17	0.31707317	15	45
Mark Schweikert	5403	33	6	0.0061077	18	0.00111049	15	0.18181818	11	44
David Stockdale	5371	22	4	0.0040961	7	0.00074474	9	0.18181818	11	27
John A.West	2797	4	2	0.0014301	2	0.00071505	8	0.5	20	30

In the municipal court the judges Karla Grandy and Deidra Hair are considered to be the most efficient with the corresponding probabilities of 0 for the case to be reversed.

Conclusion

So the above case study analysis gives the probability of cases being appealed and reversed in three different courts, probability of a case being appealed for each judge, probability of a case being reversed for each judge, probability of reversal given an appeal for each judge and rank of all the judges.