Precedential Cascades: A Critical Appraisal

Informative Precedent and Intrajudicial Communication

“…First, reasoning from precedents may improve communication between appeals courts, allowing for judicial specialization and error correction (e.g., Kornhauser 1989;Macey 1989). A more pessimistic version of the same basic argument is that the practice of stare decisis is essentially an "information cascade" in which rational agents ignore their own information and imitate the behavior of preceding decision-makers, often leading to uncorrected inefficient results (Talley 1999).…”

The dynamic quality of law: The role of judicial incentives and legal human capital in the adaptation of law

“…Hadfield (1992), for example, points to ways in which information acquisition by courts can be biased by the activity choices of agents along the evolutionary path under particular institutional assumptions regarding the impact of precedent and case or controversy requirements. 6 Talley (1999) considers the potential for information cascades in courts in a framework that can be easily interpreted to have relevance to the comparison between different institutional settings. Hylton (2006) examines the impact of settlement on the mix of cases that go to trial and thus form the basis for rule evolution.…”

“…With few exceptions (Hadfield, 1992;Talley, 1999;Hylton, 2006), however, the literature on the evolution of common law has not analyzed the process of information acquisition and learning in courts. Similarly, the recent literature comparing the economic effects of common law and civil code regimes has emphasized differences in agency but not learning relationships (Glaeser and Shleifer, 2002;Mahoney, 2001).…”

Left, Right, and Center: Strategic Information Acquisition and Diversity in Judicial Panels

“…1732, and is sometimes identi…ed as the deliber- 6 We hasten to add that the role of doctrine may certainly be important (and we have published on the role and characterization of doctrine before. (Spitzer & Tiller;Cohen & Spitzer (1994); Talley (1999) Kornhauser's (1992a, b) "case space" and, by formalizing the model, explores the how threejudge panels (as opposed to individual judges), while not inducing perfect doctrinal control of lower courts by the Supreme Court, increase SCOTUS's ability to see its preferred doctrine carried out. Kastellec (2010) extends the model again, to a two-level hierarchy (full circuit and SCOTUS) above three judge panels, and …nds exactly the asymmetric form of control induced by whistleblowing that Cross and Tiller predicted.…”