Reversal, Dissent, and Variability in State Supreme Courts: The Centrality of Jurisdictional Source

Eisenberg, Theodore; Miller, Geoffrey P.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1080563

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the inability to select cases in appeals from the district courts (about 40 percent of the Court's docket) can also reduce attitudinal patterns when compared to attitudinal behavior in the USSC and SCC, which select cases that are by their nature more challenging. This is again supported by previous U.S. study findings, according to which case outcomes (Eisenberg & Miller 2009) and the affect of judges' characteristics on case outcomes (Kastellec & Lax 2008) change in accordance with the case‐selection process. Therefore, it is reasonable that the case‐selection process and the subsequent character of the cases will also reduce the effect of attitudes and strengthen the role that the agreed‐upon law has on Israeli justices' decision making.…”

Section: Research Hypotheses: the Isc Versus The Ussc And The Sccsupporting

confidence: 86%

Attitudinal and Neo-Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel

Weinshall-Margel

2011

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines decision making in Israel's Supreme Court regarding freedom of religion, while implementing models of decision making that were researched in other high courts, mainly the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada. Two theoretical models were studied: the attitudinal model, according to which justices decide disputes consistent with their ideological positions; and the neo-institutional approach, according to which the roles and norms of the court as an institution affect the justices' decisions. Conclusions indicate that justices' attitudes in Israel have a very strong influence on their votes on the merits. Religiously observant justices were significantly more likely to support freedom of religion claims than nonobservant justices. At the same time, the neoinstitutional claim that the law does matter is also supported by the findings. The results of the study, as compared to former studies conducted in other countries, can help better understand the influence of institutional arrangements on decision making in high courts.

show abstract

Section: Research Hypotheses: the Isc Versus The Ussc And The Sccsupporting

confidence: 86%

Attitudinal and Neo-Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel

Weinshall-Margel

2011

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A line of papers in the political science literature have shown that while judges have some level of discretion under mandatory review, it nonetheless has substantial compositional effects on the state supreme court caseload (e.g. Eisenberg and Miller, 2009). 11…”

Section: [Table 13 Here]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intrinsic Motivation in Public Service: Theory and Evidence from State Supreme Courts

Ash

MacLeod

2015

The Journal of Law and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

for their meticulous help in assembling data and other research assistance. We thank Matthew Freedman, Levon Barseghyan, and Adam Lavecchia for discussant comments on previous drafts. Columbia University's Program for Economic Research and the National Science Foundation Grant SES-1260875 provide financial support for this research. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peerreviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

show abstract

“…Note that in considering appellate court outcomes it is important to distinguish between appellate courts, such as the U.S. Courts of Appeal, that have mandatory jurisdiction and appellate courts, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, that have discretionary jurisdiction (Shavell 2010). Courts with discretionary jurisdiction choose their cases and substantial evidence indicates that they select for review cases with which they disagree, leading to high reversal rates compared to appellate courts with mandatory jurisdiction (Eisenberg, Fisher, and Rosen-Zvi 2011;Eisenberg and Miller 2009). In our data, the selection of cases for appeal is by the litigants only, not by the litigants plus the reviewing court.…”

Section: Identification Of the Role Of Appeals In The Litigation Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do Plaintiffs Lose Appeals? Biased Trial Courts, Litigious Losers, or Low Trial Win Rates?

Eisenberg¹,

Farber²

2013

American Law and Economics Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple studies find that plaintiffs who lose at trial and subsequently appeal are less successful on appeal than are losing defendants who appeal. The studies attribute this to a perception by appellate judges that trial courts are biased in favor of plaintiffs. However, at least two alternative explanations exist. First, losing plaintiffs may appeal at higher rates independent of the potential merits. Second, if plaintiffs tend to pursue to trial lawsuits where they should win on the merits less than half the time, then errors at trial will be more likely to adversely affect defendants. This study revisits the analysis of the appellate process with a theoretical model that has implications not only for appellate outcomes but for the rate of appeal. By tying together win rates at trial, appeals rates, and success rates on appeal, the model can distinguish the competing explanations for differential appellate success rates. We estimate this model using matched data on Federal District Court trials and appeals to the U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. We provide evidence that the lower plaintiff success rate on appeal is due to plaintiffs' pursuing lawsuits where they should win on the merits (which we define to be an outcome that will not be reversed or remanded on appeal) less than half the time. We also provide evidence against explaining asymmetric success on appeal being attributable to trial courts favoring plaintiffs and evidence against juries being favorable to plaintiffs compared to judges.

show abstract

Reversal, Dissent, and Variability in State Supreme Courts: The Centrality of Jurisdictional Source

Cited by 17 publications

References 10 publications

Attitudinal and Neo-Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel

Attitudinal and Neo-Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel

Intrinsic Motivation in Public Service: Theory and Evidence from State Supreme Courts

Why Do Plaintiffs Lose Appeals? Biased Trial Courts, Litigious Losers, or Low Trial Win Rates?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About