ReformingGovernment.org Facebook X / Twitter
Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Appellate Scorecards
by District.

Sixteen judges across four districts, evaluated on published opinions using a six-category framework.

Executive Summary

The workhorse of Wisconsin's judiciary.

About this Report

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals resolves all appeals that never reach the Supreme Court — the vast majority of Wisconsin appeals. Its published opinions establish binding precedent statewide. Despite this profound influence, no organization had attempted a systematic, opinion-by-opinion review of the court's work. This report changes that.

The Institute for Reforming Government reviewed every published opinion issued by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals between January 2024 and December 2025 — 113 opinions across all four districts. Each was evaluated on six dimensions: fidelity to binding precedent, respect for legislative authority, textualist methodology, judicial restraint, protection of individual liberty, and craft & clarity.

113
Opinions Reviewed
16
Judges Evaluated
4
Districts
6
Dimensions

What we found: The Wisconsin Court of Appeals is, for the most part, a competent and professional institution. The overwhelming majority of published opinions reflect sound legal reasoning. But several important patterns emerged — most notably District II's significant internal divisions, with Judge Neubauer's dissent record producing the most distinct voting pattern of any judge in the four-district system.

Key Findings

Eight takeaways & structural insights.

01

The Court of Appeals Is Largely Doing Its Job

Across more than 100 published opinions, the 16 jurists demonstrate competent statutory interpretation under the Kalal framework and appropriate judicial restraint. The machinery of justice operates as designed.

02

Meaningful Differences Emerge in the Hardest Cases

When cases involve contested questions of statutory interpretation, agency authority, or constitutional boundaries, the baseline unanimity shatters — revealing starkly divergent methodologies, especially in District II.

03

District Composition Matters More Than Most Realize

Wisconsin's appellate architecture treats the four districts as interchangeable equivalents — this is a profound fiction. Geography determines docket: District I gets criminal/commercial; District IV gets government-structure cases.

04

District II Was Reversed Most Often

The Supreme Court reversed District II opinions in WMC v. DNR, Kaul v. Legislature, Halter v. WIAA, and Oconomowoc v. Cota. In each case, Judge Neubauer had dissented from the majority — a pattern warranting close attention.

05

The Court Should Have More Flexibility to Revisit Wrongly Decided Precedent

If the first district to publish on a novel question gets the analysis wrong, every other district is locked into following that error. The court needs an en banc-style review mechanism, like the federal circuits.

06

District IV Has Disproportionate Judges Relative to Caseload

District IV operates with five judges yet handles a published docket comparable in size to districts with three or four judges — raising questions about resource allocation and current district boundaries.

07

Structural Reform Deserves Serious Consideration

Geographic case concentration, the absence of statewide panel randomization, and the first-to-publish binding precedent rule all create structural pressures requiring institutional reform.

08

Districts Should Evaluate Their Practices vs. Peers

Some districts publish more frequently, prefer oral argument, or have longer wait times. Cross-district comparison illuminates institutional choices that shape Wisconsin appellate justice.

Analytical Framework

Six dimensions of judicial reasoning.

Every published opinion was evaluated against these six dimensions — each grounded in external, verifiable reference points like Kalal, Cook v. Cook, and Tetra Tech.

01

Adherence to Precedent

Does the opinion identify and apply controlling Wisconsin Supreme Court authority? Reference points: Cook v. Cook precedent hierarchy and on-point Supreme Court holdings.

02

Legislative Deference

Does the opinion treat the legislature's enacted text as the operative legal instrument, applying de novo review under Tetra Tech rather than reflexive agency deference?

03

Textualism & Statutory Fidelity

Does the opinion apply the Kalal plain-meaning framework? Begin with text, engage statutory structure, and reach extrinsic sources only after finding ambiguity.

04

Judicial Restraint

Does the opinion decide what the parties asked the court to decide — and no more? Resolve on the narrowest available ground; avoid unnecessary dicta.

05

Individual Liberty

Does the opinion apply the scrutiny that the relevant constitutional provision demands? This dimension measures analytical rigor, not outcome.

06

Craft & Clarity

Is the opinion written so its operative legal rule can be identified and applied by circuit court judges, attorneys, and informed citizens? Holdings must be clear.

Judges by District

Sixteen judges, four districts.

Click any judge for a detailed profile, notable opinions, and analysis.

District I — Milwaukee County

District I map
District I
Judge Donald

Judge Donald

Presiding Judge, District I

Report Available
Judge Colon

Judge Colon

District I

Report Available
Judge White

Judge White

District I

Report Available

District II — Southeastern Wisconsin

District II map
District II
Judge Neubauer

Judge Neubauer

Presiding Judge, District II

Report Available
Judge Grogan

Judge Grogan

District II

Report Available
Judge Gundrum

Judge Gundrum

District II

Report Available
Judge Lazar

Judge Lazar

District II

Report Available

District III — Northern Wisconsin

District III map
District III
Judge Stark

Judge Stark

Presiding Judge, District III

Report Available
Judge Hruz

Judge Hruz

District III

Report Available
Judge Gill

Judge Gill

District III

Report Available

District IV — Western & Southern Wisconsin

District IV map
District IV
Judge Kloppenburg

Judge Kloppenburg

Presiding Judge, District IV

Report Available
Judge Graham

Judge Graham

District IV

Report Available
Judge Taylor

Judge Taylor

District IV

Report Available
Judge Nashold

Judge Nashold

District IV

Report Available
Judge Blanchard

Judge Blanchard

District IV

Report Available
Judge Geenen

Judge Geenen

District IV

Report Available

The Court of Appeals scorecard uses a six-category framework: Adherence to Precedent (30%), Legislative Deference (15%), Textualism & Statutory Fidelity (15%), Judicial Restraint (15%), Individual Liberty (15%), and Craft & Clarity (10%).

Read the Full CoA Report
Rules of Appellate Procedure CoA Internal Operating Procedures