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 …show more content…
We were able to get the rest of the results in the data analysis, which includes the total, mean, median, and mode: N=40 | | | | Total | 182908 | 2368 | 320 | Mean | 4572.7 | 59.2 | 8 | Median | 3212 | 41 | 7 | Mode | #N/A | 137 | 6 |

With simple calculations the standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and correlation coefficient:

Judges | Disposed | Column1 | Appealed | Column2 | Reversed | Column3 | Fred Cartolano | Σ(X-Xi) | Σ(X-Xi)^2 | Σ(X-Xi) | Σ(X-Xi)^2 | Σ(X-Xi) | Σ(X-Xi)^2 | Thomas Crush | -1535.7 | 2358374.49 | 77.8 | 6052.84 | 4 | 16 | Patrick Dinkelacker | -1200.7 | 1441680.49 | 59.8 | 3576.04 | 2 | 4 | Timothy Hogan | -3314.7 | 10987236.09 | -15.2 | 231.04 | 0 | 0 | Robert Kraft | -2618.7 | 6857589.69 | 0.8 | 0.64 | -1 | 1 | William Mathews | -1434.7 | 2058364.09 | 67.8 | 4596.84 | -1 | 1 | William Morrissey | -2308.7 | 5330095.69 | 31.8 | 1011.24 | 10 | 100 | Norbert Nadel | -1540.7 | 2373756.49 | 61.8 | 3819.24 | 14 | 196 | Arthur Ney Jr. | -1613.7 | 2604027.69 | 71.8 | 5155.24 | 12 | 144 | Richard Niehaus | -1353.7 | 1832503.69 | 65.8 | 4329.64 | 6 | 36 | Thomas Nurre | -1219.7 | 1487668.09 | 77.8 | 6052.84 | 8 | 64 | John O'Connor | -1572.7 | 2473385.29 | 61.8 | 3819.24 | -2 | 4 | Robert Ruehlman | -1603.7 | 2571853.69 | 69.8 | 4872.04 | 4 | 16 | J. Howard Sundermann Jr. | -1367.7 | 1870603.29 | 85.8 | 7361.64 | 10 |