You are on page 1of 24

# Statistics Case Study Evaluation

By- Mayur Kriplani (234)

HP

Managerial Report
Case 1
1) Per cent frequency distribution for key variables.
a) Here key variable is Type of payment:-

Variable American Express Discover Master Card Proprietary Card Visa

Frequency Percent Frequency 2 5 13 70 10

2 5 13 70 10

Frequency distribution:-

Frequency Percent
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Frequency Percent

b)Here Key variable is type of customer:-

Variable Frequency Percent Promotional 69 Regular 31

Frequency distribution:- Frequency Percent 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Promotional Regular Frequency Percent c)Here Key variable is type of gender:- Variable Female Male Frequency Percent 93 7 Frequency Distribution:- Frequency Percent 100 80 60 40 20 0 Female Male Frequency Percent .

Variable American Express Discover Master Card Proprietary Card Visa Frequency Percent 2 5 13 70 10 Pie Chart:- Frequency Percent Visa 10% American Express 2% Discover 5% Master Card 13% Proprietary Card 70% .d)Here key variable is marital status:- Variable Married Single Frequency Percent 84 16 Frequency Distribution:- Frequency Percent 100 50 0 Married Single Frequency Percent 2) A bar or pie chart showing the number of customer purchases attributable to the method of payment.

99 250-299.99 150-199. Net Sales 0-49.99 50-99.00 200.00 300.99 200-249.99 100-149.3) A cross tabulation of type of customer (regular or promotional) versus net sales.00 Age As we can see from the scatter diagram most of the customers are aged between 30 and 50 and the net sales are between 30and 80.00 150.00 50. 4) A scatter diagram to explore the relationship between net sales and customer age. b) People opting for net sales more than 150 are also the ones who arepromotional customers. . c) Giving out coupons to customers who are not the regular customers has definitely helped Pelican Stores to increase its sales. Age 100 80 60 40 20 0 0. of promotional customers on a given day are twice than the regular customers.00 100.99 Total Promotional 24 25 11 5 1 3 69 Regular 15 10 5 1 0 0 31 Total 39 35 16 6 1 4 100 Analysis based on the cross tabulation:a)As we can see the no.00 250.00 350.

Relative Frequency and Percent Frequency Distributions Class MidPoint 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 Class Limits 0 – 10 10 – 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 50 – 60 60 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 90 90 .15 15 8 0. Histogram 4. Frequency Distribution 2.84 Assuming W=10.110 Frequency Relative Frequency Percent Frequency 70 0.00 0 0 0.01 1 1 0. Ogive (i) Opening Gross Sales : 1. (108.01 1 0 0.00 0 2 0.70 70 15 0. 2.02 2 .100 100 .02 2 1 0.08 8 2 0.Case 2 1. Relative Frequency and Percent Frequency Distributions 3. Frequency Distribution : Number of classes : We Select the number of classes (n=10) Width of Class = (Largest Data Value – Smallest Data Value) / n. The data is quantitative data and hence we apply descriptive statistics which comprises of the following: 1.00 0 1 0.01 1 0 0.01)/10 = 10. Tabular and graphical summaries for each of the four variables along with a discussion of what each summary tells us about the motion picture industry. Cumulative Distributions 5.44-0.

85 85 0.00 100 Class Limits =< 10 =< 20 =< 30 =< 40 =< 50 =< 60 =< 70 =< 80 =< 90 =< 100 =< 110 5.97 97 0.96 96 0. Histogram 4.95 95 0.70 70 0. .Very less movies show a high opening week sales. Ogive Summary .98 98 0.98 98 1.93 93 0.98 98 0.97 97 0.3. Cumulative Distributions Cumulative Frequency 70 85 93 95 96 97 97 98 98 98 100 Cumulative Relative Cumulative Percent Frequency Frequency 0.

152 152 .04 4 0 0. W=38.190 190 .266 266 . Relative Frequency and Percent Frequency Distributions Class MidPoint 19 57 95 133 171 209 247 285 323 361 399 Class Limits 0 – 38 38 – 76 76 .02 2 1 0.01 1 0 0. Histogram Frequency Relative Frequency Percent Frequency 73 0.(ii) Total Gross Sales : 1.304 304 . 2. Frequency Distribution : Number of classes : We Select the number of classes (n=10) Width of Class = (Largest Data Value – Smallest Data Value) / n .01 1 1 0.01 1 2 0.17 17 4 0.03)/10 = 38.01 1 .380 380 .114 114 .00 0 1 0. (380.73 73 17 0.00 0 0 0.18-0.418 3.00 0 1 0.228 228 .342 342 .

(3910-5)/10 = 390. Ogive OGIVE 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Cumulative Frequency Summary: Less number of movies are showing high total gross sales giving the indication are super hits or even hits. Frequency Distribution : Number of classes : We Select the number of classes (n=10) Width of Class = (Largest Data Value – Smallest Data Value) / n .73 73 0.95 95 0.97 97 0.99 99 1.90 90 0. W=391.94 94 0.00 100 Class Limits =< 38 =< 76 =< 114 =< 152 =< 190 =< 228 =< 266 =< 304 =< 342 =< 380 =< 418 5.98 98 0. (ii) Number of Theaters : 1.5.94 94 0. Cumulative Distributions Cumulative Frequency 73 90 94 94 95 97 98 99 99 99 100 Cumulative Relative Cumulative Percent Frequency Frequency 0. .99 99 0.99 99 0.4.

50 0.391 392 .71 0.95 1.2737 2738 .3520 1564 1955 2346 2737 3128 3519 3910 Frequency 4.06 0. Cumulative Distributions Class Limits Cumulative Frequency =< 391 50 =< 782 53 =< 1173 57 =< 1564 60 =< 1955 66 =< 2346 71 =< 2737 75 =< 3128 80 =< 3529 95 =< 3910 100 Cumulative Relative Frequency 0.3519 3520 .05 0.60 0.05 0.1956 .391 392 782 783 1173 1174 .04 0.57 0.3129 .1564 .2346 2347 .03 0.04 0. Relative Frequency and Percent Frequency Distributions Class Limits 0 .66 0.1564 1564 .3128 3129 .3910 Frequency 50 3 4 3 6 5 4 5 15 5 Relative Frequency 0.03 0.2738 . Histogram HISTOGRAM 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 .75 0.2347 .50 0.1955 1956 .1173 1174 .15 0.05 Percent Frequency 50 3 4 3 6 5 4 5 15 5 Class MidPoint 195 586 977 1368 1759 2150 2541 2932 3323 3714 3.00 Cumulative Percent Frequency 50 53 57 60 66 71 75 80 95 100 .80 0.782 783 .2.53 0.

15 0.28 0.27 Frequency 28 18 15 11 9 8 8 2 1 Relative Frequency 0. Ogive OGIVE 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Cumulative Frequency (iv) Number of weeks in Top 60 : 1.08 0.18 0. Frequency Distribution : Number of classes: We Select the number of classes (n=10) Width of Class = (Largest Data Value – Smallest Data Value) / n.12 13 .21 22 .5.15 16 .09 0.08 0.02 0.24 25 .18 19 . Relative Frequency and Percent Frequency Distributions Class Limits 0-3 4-6 7-9 10 .01 Percent Frequency 28 18 15 11 9 8 8 2 1 Class MidPoint 2 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 .= 3 2.11 0.

81 0.97 0.3.21 22 .12 13 .24 25 . Histogram HISTOGRAM 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0-3 4-6 7-9 10 .61 0.99 1. Cumulative Distributions Class Limits =< 3 =< 6 =< 9 =< 12 =< 15 =< 18 =< 21 =< 24 =< 27 Cumulative Frequency 28 46 61 72 81 89 97 99 100 Cumulative Relative Frequency 0. Ogive OGIVE 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Cumulative Frequency .15 16 .46 0.72 0.27 Frequency 4.89 0.00 Cumulative Percent Frequency 28 46 61 72 81 89 97 99 100 5.28 0.18 19 .

00 100.00 120. This tells us that total sales are directly proportional to Opening weekend sales.00 60.00 150.00 40.00 80.00 20.00 200.00 100.00 Total Gross Total Gross Sales (in 300. A scatter diagram to explore the relationship between Total Gross Sales and Opening Weekend Gross Sales 400. 2.00 350.Summary -Less no of movies have many weeks in top 60 again demanding improvement in Indian Motion Picture Industry.00 Total Gross Linear (Total Gross) Opening Weekend Sales The total gross sales and opening weekend sales nearly follows a linear relationship.00 250.00 0.00 50.00 0. .

00 (50. .00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Total Gross Number of Weeks No of weeks in top 60 affect the sales but anything above 10-15 weeks can be a good number for total sales to be good.00 50. A scatter diagram to explore the relationship between Total Gross Sales and Number of Theatres 400.000 3. 4.000 5.00 50.00 0.00 300.00 0.000 4.00 300.00 150. A scatter diagram to explore the relationship between Total Gross Sales and Number of Weeks in the Top 60 Total Gross Sales(in \$ Millions) Total Gross 400.00 100.00 350.00 100.00 150.00 250.3.00) 0 Total Gross Total Gross Sales(in \$ Total Gross Linear (Total Gross) 1.00 350.000 2.00 200.000 No Of Theatres The total gross sales don’t only depend on number of theatres but there should be substantial no of theatres showing the movie for total gross sales to be good.00 200.00 250.

Case 3 Pelican Stores II (Pelican stores.8 108.8 64 3777. It can be seen from the difference in the Range and the Interquartile Range.8 3667.6 274.5 1229.42 31.8 3667.76 35. Descriptive Statistics on Net salesand descriptive statistics on net sales by various classifications of customers Descriptive Statistics on Net sales Sl No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Head Mean Median Mode Range First Quartile Third Quartile Inter Quartile Range Variance Standard Deviation Co-efficient of Variation Value 77.6 55.36 39.99 51 44. The average spending by the promotional customers is higher than the overall average spending.4 61.9 Combined 77.CD file) 1.6 101.46 72.39 71. Descriptive statistics on net sales by various classifications of customers A.6 274. Type of customers – Promotional or Regular Sl No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Head Mean Median Mode Range First Quartile Third Quartile Inter Quartile Range Variance Standard Deviation Co-efficient of Variation Promotional 84.71 31.6 101. .5 74 34.07 56.25 39.71 31.39 71.5 137.36 39.4 61.6 55. There is a stark difference between the low spending customers and the high spending customers.29 63.6 274.61 61.36 44.38 Regular 61.6 59.6 59.38 Majority of the sales have come from the high spending customers as it is evident from the difference in the values of Mean and Median and also from the coefficient of variation.57 The number of sales has increased due to the promotional offers given to the promotional customers.

33 -0.5 274.8 3667.50 10. Most of the purchases done by the males are similar.40 61.6 59.60 163.94 The overall statistics for the customers based on their marital status is similar.71 31.39 71.20 39.3 40.03 59.49 47.60 102.38 12.38 Unmarried 75.4 61.36 39.81 Since. the Pelican Stores is a women’s apparel stores. 2.40 53.25 58.30 39. Comparison by Gender of Customer Sl No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Head Mean Median Mode Range First Quartile Third Quartile Inter Quartile Range Variance Standard Deviation Co-efficient of Variation Female 79.6 55. Comparison by Marital Status of Customers Sl No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Head Mean Median Mode Range First Quartile Third Quartile Inter Quartile Range Variance Standard Deviation Co-efficient of Variation Married 78.30 2040.66 -7.6 59.6 101.B. It can be said from the low Interquartile Range and the low value of standard deviation as compared to those of the females.36 39.71 31.68 45.40 52. It is a very uniformly distributed data based on the customer’s marital status.00 924.35 64.40 31.6 55.39 55.60 274.78 77.59 56.67 73.50 49.90 Combined 77.36 39.6 101.39 71. the number of unmarried customers were less.01 .4 61. Descriptive statistics concerning the relationship between age and net sales Sl No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Head Mean of Age Mean of Net Sales Standard Deviation of Age Standard Deviation of Net Sales Covariance Corelation Co-efficient Value 42.17 59.6 274.46 31.50 89.30 30.6 101. majority of the purchases have been done by the females.38 Male 56.90 71.80 3237.36 39. C.55 98. the overall statistics don’t differ much even though there is a difference in the Standard deviation in the two types of customers.3 57.8 3667.00 39. Since.6 274.85 Combined 77.19 62.8 3325.

Case 4 1.78 63.852 Multi-modal 3989.852 47.44 380.03 356.39 5. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire b. In this case. .768 7 1 40.96 There is a very strong positive linear relation between Total Gross sales and Opening week gross sales. Star Wars: Episode III 3. a.85 820 Multi-modal 1900785 1378. The following movies can be termed as high performance outliers.69 105.3 Total gross 33.15 0.39 12.37 62.3 108.24 26 3 7 13 10 2.5 410 2679 159630 Weeks 8. Descriptive statistics for each of the four variables Sl No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Head Mean Median Mode Variance Standard Deviation Co-effectient of variation Range First Quartile Second Quartile Third Quartile Inter Quartile Open gross 9. This is evident from the value of correlation coefficient which is very close to 1. High Performance Movie Outliers By calculating the z-factor of the total gross of each movie we can determine the outliers.56 46. the relationship is not a very strong negative one.83 1.16 91.5 0.3 18. Total Gross sales and Opening week gross Sl No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Head Mean of Total Gross sales Mean of Opening week gross Standard Deviation of Gross sales Standard Deviation of Opening week gross Covariance Corelation Co-efficient Value 33.06 0.5 12. Descriptive statistics showing the relationship between total gross sales and each of the other variables i.69 0.4 0. But since the value of correlation coefficient is not very close to -1.04 9.9 199.6 3905 45.37 5.95 Theatre 1290.84 18.The Negative Covariance value indicates Negative linear relation. the movies with |z|>3 can be considered as high performance outliers.204 73.4 0. War of the Worlds c.78 1138.

.68 62.84 1371.04 8. iii.92 0.ii.71 There is a strong positive linear relation between Total Gross sales and Number of theatres. This is evident from the value of correlation coefficient which is close to 1.78 61199. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Gross sales and Weeks in Top 60 Sl No Head Mean of Total Gross sales Mean of Weeks in Top 60 Standard Deviation of Gross sales Standard Deviation of Weeks in Top 60 Covariance Corelation Co-efficient Value 33.94 62. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Gross sales and Number of theatres Sl No Head Mean of Total Gross sales Mean of Total number of theatres Standard Deviation of Gross sales Standard Deviation of Total number of theatres Covariance Corelation Co-efficient Value 33. This is evident from the value of correlation coefficient which is midway between 0 and 1.47 0.04 1277.35 209.53 There is a positive linear relation between Total Gross sales and Weeks in Top 60.84 6.

106 Total no of Cases Reversed :.0046 Probability of Cases being Reversed = 0.0035 Probability of Cases being Reversed = 0.0009 .Case 5 Hamilton County Judges (Reference file: Judge CD File) 1.00056 Municipal Court:- Total no of Cases Disposed:. The probability of cases being appealed and reversed in the three different courts Common Court:- Total no of Cases Disposed: 43945 Total no of Cases Appealed: 1762 Total no of Cases Reversed: 199 I) II) Probability of Cases being Appealed = 0.108464 Total no of Cases Appealed:.0045 Domestic Court:- Total no of Cases Disposed:.104 I) II) Probability of Cases being Appealed = 0.500 Total no of Cases Reversed :.04 Probability of Cases being Reversed = 0.30499 Total no of Cases Appealed:.17 I) II) Probability of Cases being Appealed = 0.

0399 Norbert Nadel 2959 131 20 Common 0. Howard Sundermann Jr.0061 David Stockdale 5371 22 4 Muni 0.0056 Leslie Isaiah Gaines 5282 35 13 Muni 0.0628 Ann Marie Tracey 3141 127 13 Common 0.0046 Melba Marsh 8219 34 7 Muni 0.0066 Karla Grady 5253 6 0 Muni 0.0353 Robert Kraft 3138 127 7 Common 0.0452 J.0011 Deidra Hair 2532 5 0 Muni 0.0409 Thomas Nurre 3000 121 6 Common 0.0021 Joseph Luebbers 4698 25 8 Muni 0.0451 Thomas Crush 3372 119 10 Common 0.0041 John A.0056 James Patrick Kenney 2798 6 1 Muni 0.0025 Mike Allen 6149 43 4 Muni 0.0388 Richard Niehaus 3353 137 16 Common 0.0055 Ronald Panioto 12970 32 3 Domestic 0. .0443 Arthur Ney Jr.0044 Albert Mestemaker 4975 28 9 Muni 0.0070 Nadine Allen 7812 34 6 Muni 0.0056 Mark Painter 2239 7 3 Muni 0.0403 John O'Connor 2969 129 12 Common 0. 955 60 10 Common 0.0037 Timothy Hogan 2308 13 2 Muni 0.0171 The last column provides the probability of case appealed against each judge respectively.2. The probability of a case being appealed for each judge Judge Disposed Appealed Reversed Court Probability appealed of Cases Fred Cartolano 3037 137 12 Common 0.0020 Dennis Helmick 7900 29 5 Muni 0. West 2797 4 2 Muni 0.0053 William Mallory 8277 38 9 Muni 0.0014 Patrick Dinkelacker 7259 63 12 Com + Dom 0. 3219 125 14 Common 0.0404 Ralph Winkler 3089 88 6 Common 0.0087 Timothy Hogan 4262 73 9 Com + Muni 0.0026 Patrick Dinkelacker 6001 19 4 Domestic 0.0031 Jack Rosen 7790 41 13 Muni 0.0405 William Mathews 2264 91 18 Common 0.0032 Deborah Gaines 8799 48 9 Domestic 0.0041 Beth Mattingly 2971 13 1 Muni 0.0434 Robert Ruehlman 3205 145 18 Common 0.0053 Mark Schweikert 5403 33 6 Muni 0.0052 David Davis 7736 43 5 Muni 0.0402 William Morrissey 3032 121 22 Common 0.0044 Timothy Black 7954 41 6 Muni 0.0285 Penelope Cunningham 2729 7 1 Domestic 0.

0008 0.0040 0. Ann Marie Tracey Ralph Winkler Penelope Cunningham Patrick Dinkelacker Deborah Gaines Ronald Panioto Mike Allen Nadine Allen Timothy Black David Davis Leslie Isaiah Gaines Karla Grady Deidra Hair Dennis Helmick Timothy Hogan James Patrick Kenney Joseph Luebbers William Mallory Melba Marsh Beth Mattingly Albert Mestemaker Mark Painter Jack Rosen Mark Schweikert David Stockdale John A.0073 0.0006 0.0018 0.0030 0.0043 0.0019 0.0000 0.0000 0.0017 0.0004 0.0011 0.0007 0.0048 0.0004 0.3.0020 0.0017 0.0021 The last column provides the probability of case Reversed against each judge respectively. Richard Niehaus Thomas Nurre John O'Connor Robert Ruehlman J.0007 0. The probability of a case being reversed for each judge Judge Disposed Appealed Reversed Court Fred Cartolano Thomas Crush Robert Kraft William Mathews William Morrissey Norbert Nadel Arthur Ney Jr.0006 0.0013 0.0017 0.0002 0.0009 0.0025 0.0003 0. Howard Sundermann Jr. West Patrick Dinkelacker Timothy Hogan 3037 3372 3138 2264 3032 2959 3219 3353 3000 2969 3205 955 3141 3089 2729 6001 8799 12970 6149 7812 7954 7736 5282 5253 2532 7900 2308 2798 4698 8277 8219 2971 4975 2239 7790 5403 5371 2797 7259 4262 137 119 127 91 121 131 125 137 121 129 145 60 127 88 7 19 48 32 43 34 41 43 35 6 5 29 13 6 25 38 34 13 28 7 41 33 22 4 63 73 12 10 7 18 22 20 14 16 6 12 18 10 13 6 1 4 9 3 4 6 6 5 13 0 0 5 2 1 8 9 7 1 9 3 13 6 4 2 12 9 Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Domestic Domestic Domestic Domestic Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Com + Dom Com + muni Probability of Cases reversed 0.0010 0.0007 0.0068 0. .0008 0.0007 0.0040 0.0041 0.0056 0.0022 0.0009 0.0105 0.0011 0.0080 0.

000 Deidra Hair 2532 5 0 Muni 0.320 William Mallory 8277 38 9 Muni 0.211 Deborah Gaines 8799 48 9 Domestic 0.182 David Stockdale 5371 22 4 Muni 0.167 Ann Marie Tracey 3141 127 13 Common 0. 3219 125 14 Common 0.055 William Mathews 2264 91 18 Common 0.153 Arthur Ney Jr.093 Nadine Allen 7812 34 6 Muni 0.116 Leslie Isaiah Gaines 5282 35 13 Muni 0.154 James Patrick Kenney 2798 6 1 Muni 0.077 Albert Mestemaker 4975 28 9 Muni 0.123 The last column provides the probability of reversal given in an appeal against each judge respectively.172 Timothy Hogan 2308 13 2 Muni 0.188 Ronald Panioto 12970 32 3 Domestic 0.088 Thomas Crush 3372 119 10 Common 0.112 Richard Niehaus 3353 137 16 Common 0.500 Patrick Dinkelacker 7259 63 12 Com + Dom 0.182 John A.206 Beth Mattingly 2971 13 1 Muni 0. West 2797 4 2 Muni 0.321 Mark Painter 2239 7 3 Muni 0.084 Robert Kraft 3138 127 7 Common 0.143 Patrick Dinkelacker 6001 19 4 Domestic 0.093 Robert Ruehlman 3205 145 18 Common 0.000 Dennis Helmick 7900 29 5 Muni 0.198 William Morrissey 3032 121 22 Common 0.124 J.4.117 Thomas Nurre 3000 121 6 Common 0.094 Mike Allen 6149 43 4 Muni 0.317 Mark Schweikert 5403 33 6 Muni 0.068 Penelope Cunningham 2729 7 1 Domestic 0.102 Jr.167 Joseph Luebbers 4698 25 8 Muni 0.146 David Davis 7736 43 5 Muni 0. . Howard Sundermann 955 60 10 Common 0.237 Melba Marsh 8219 34 7 Muni 0. The probability of reversal given an appeal for each judge.371 Karla Grady 5253 6 0 Muni 0.176 Timothy Black 7954 41 6 Muni 0.050 John O'Connor 2969 129 12 Common 0.190 Timothy Hogan 4262 73 9 Com + muni 0.429 Jack Rosen 7790 41 13 Muni 0. Judge Disposed Appealed Reversed Court Probability of Reversal given in an appeal Fred Cartolano 3037 137 12 Common 0. Ralph Winkler 3089 88 6 Common 0.182 Norbert Nadel 2959 131 20 Common 0.

002 0.035 0.045 0. State the criteria you used and provide a rationale for your choice. Probability of Case appealed 0.004 0.0010 .003 0.002 0.031 0. The probability of case being reversed (Least to Highest).007 0.043 0.5. Common Court: Probability of Case appealed 0.006 0.045 0. Domestic Court:- Rank Judge Disposed Appealed Reversed Court 1 Ronald Panioto 12970 32 3 Domes 2 Penelope 2729 7 1 Domes tic 3 Patrick Dinkelacker 6001 19 4 Domes Cunningham tic 4 Deborah Gaines 8799 48 9 Domes tic The ranks are been given by considering two factors: tic i) ii) The probability of case being reversed (Least to Highest).005 0.0055 Probability of Case reversed 0. i.004 0.004 0.008 0.0026 0.010 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Judge Ralph Winkler Thomas Nurre Robert Kraft Thomas Crush Timothy Hogan Fred Cartolano John O'Connor Ann Marie Tracey Arthur Ney Jr.002 0.063 955 60 10 Common Probability of Case reversed 0. The probability of case being disposed (Highest to least). Richard Niehaus Robert Ruehlman Patrick Dinkelacker Norbert Nadel William Morrissey William Mathews J. Howard 16 Sundermann Jr.040 0.004 0.0032 0.028 0.0025 0. Rank the judges within each court.044 0.0004 0.041 0.040 0.039 0.035 0.004 0.040 0.0002 0.040 0.007 0.006 0.0007 0. The probability of case being disposed (Highest to least).040 0. Disposed 3089 3000 3138 3372 1954 3037 2969 3141 3219 3353 3205 1258 2959 3032 2264 Appealed 88 121 127 119 60 137 129 127 125 137 145 44 131 121 91 Reversed 6 6 7 10 7 12 12 13 14 16 18 8 20 22 18 Court Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Common The ranks are given by considering two factors: i) ii) ii.

0006 0. . The probability of case being disposed (Highest to least).0044 0.0052 0.0004 0.0009 0.0037 0.0009 0.0003 0.0066 0.0021 0.0046 0.0017 0.0053 0.0056 0.0011 0.0008 0.0056 0.iii.0007 0.0018 0.0006 0.0041 0.0031 0. West David Stockdale Timothy Black Nadine Allen Melba Marsh Timothy Hogan William Mallory Mark Schweikert Mark Painter Jack Rosen Joseph Luebbers Albert Mestemaker Leslie Isaiah Gaines Disposed Appealed Reversed Court 5253 6 0 Muni 2532 5 0 Muni 2971 13 1 Muni 2798 7900 7736 6149 2797 5371 7954 7812 8219 2308 8277 5403 2239 7790 4698 4975 5282 6 29 43 43 4 22 41 34 34 13 38 33 7 41 25 28 35 1 5 5 4 2 4 6 6 7 2 9 6 3 13 8 9 13 Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Muni Probability Probability of Case of Case appealed reversed 0.0017 0.0056 0.0011 0.0013 0.0053 0.0025 The ranks are been given by considering two factors: i) ii) The probability of case being reversed (Least to Highest).0044 0.0011 0.0070 0.0000 0.0061 0.0020 0.0041 0.0008 0. Municipal Courts:- Rank Judge 1 Karla Grady 2 Deidra Hair 3 Beth Mattingly 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 James Patrick Kenney Dennis Helmick David Davis Mike Allen John A.0000 0.0007 0.0007 0.0014 0.