I've changed my mind
On further consideration, because the Court spent most of oral argument in Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley talking about whether it had jurisdiction, and because the ruling DIGing the grant of cert leaves intact the 9th Circuit decision that I predicted the Court would affirm, and finally because I don't think the Court would issue a lengthy opinion just to say "we don't have jurisdiction," I have decided that I predicted the case correctly. After looking over Sam Heldman's prediction on the case, he declined to decide the jurisdictional issue, finding it "equally likely" that the case would not reach the merits.
Thus, I am counting this as a correct prediction for me and an incorrect prediction for Sam. Thus, under my rules (Sam acknowledged in e-mail that I was free to create my own rules), at least when the Court has requested supplemental briefing on an issue, failure to make a prediction on that issue is effectively a prediction that the issue will not affect the outcome. I know this seems self-serving, but I will stick to it if it happens to recur. Incidentally, originally I thought that Sam had predicted the Court would dismiss and that if it didn't dismiss it would reverse. I had planned to count a dismissal as one for each of us and if the Court didn't dismiss I would have given one correct prediction to whichever oucome the Court reached.
In any case, I will need this one because by all accounts my predition on Eldred blew it.
In other news, it looks both Sam and I have correctly predicted the Syngenta decision. The Respondent sat down after 10 minutes because there was nothing more to say. See this article for a description (thanks to Howard Bashman for the link).