Explicando o dissenso: uma análise empírica do comportamento judicial do Supremo Tribunal Federal e da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos (Explaining Dissent: An Empirical Analysis of Judicial Behaviour of the Brazilian Supreme Court and Supreme Court of the United States)

Almeida, Guilherme; Nunes, José Luiz; Chaves, Luciano Athayde

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3428679

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Hartmann et al 2017) and 'What affects more the court's cohesion, the court's workload, or differences between the justices' personalities?' (Almeida et al 2016).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting and ranking leading cases in Brazilian Supreme Court decisions

Souza¹,

Finger²,

Araújo³

et al. 2023

The Knowledge Engineering Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work studies quantitative measures for ranking judicial decisions by the Brazilian Supreme Court [Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF)] and selecting leading cases, which are understood as those with broadness of influence on different legal fields. The measures are based on a network built over decisions whose cases were finalized in the Brazilian Supreme Court between 01/2001 and 12/2019, which were obtained by crawling publicly available STF records. Three ranking measures are proposed; two are adaptations of the PageRank algorithm, and one adapts Kleinberg’s algorithm. Such measures are compared with respect to agreement on top 100 rankings; we also analyze each robustness measure based on self-agreement under perturbation. We examine whether the resulting quantitative ranking is congenial to a qualitative intuition of what the legal community usually considers as relevant precedents. We also discuss some possible criteria of relevance in the seek for patterns that suggest how quantitative and qualitative measures would better align. The ranking of leading cases and relevant decisions improved after building decision networks without irrelevant appeals and decisions that overflow the court offers a starting point to discuss the role of STF in the Brazilian judicial system. In our last work, both versions of PageRank and Kleinberg algorithms produced different rankings and all of them were robust with respect to 10% and 20%-perturbation levels, but none of them retrieved leading cases at the top of these rankings. Then, we took a further step in the studies of the STF decision network and we introduced better filtering of network nodes guided by legal expertise on the works of the Supreme Court. We also introduced more fine-grained perturbance levels to understand the impact of such filters in the STF decision network. We concluded that after filtering low-relevance decision types, the STF decision network is still robust under 10%-perturbation, but it presents higher degradation by increasing perturbation levels. The two versions of PageRank still produce different rankings. Kleinberg’s algorithm provides a different ranking, with many relevant criminal cases. Although we improved algorithms rankings filtering decisions from the network, which represents an important methodological step, there is still room for improvement. Given that relevant decisions are well ranked after filtering out a large amount of irrelevant decisions, the results set a starting point to discuss the role of STF in the Brazilian judicial system.

show abstract

“…(Hartmann et al 2017) and 'What affects more the court's cohesion, the court's workload, or differences between the justices' personalities?' (Almeida et al 2016).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%