Toward a Cooperative Strategy for Federal and State Judges in Mass Tort Litigation

McGovern, Francis E.

doi:10.2307/3312772

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When these subjective probabilities diverge in ways that reflect over-optimism or poor information, settlement is less likely. 16 But what type of disagreement does this subjective probability represent? Does it matter?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, litigation often includes all three types of disagreement: parties disagree about the facts, which rules apply and how those (disputed) rules apply to the (uncertain) facts. For example, in a mass tort claim, parties may disagree about whether the statute of limitation applies, the level of proof required to show injury, the effect of alternative causes of injury, the value of previously resolved cases and the size of the claimant pool (see [16].) AI tools -particularly machine learning tools -are sometimes trumpeted for their ability to help resolve litigated disputes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

AI and the nature of disagreement

Niblett,

Yoon

2024

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Litigation is a creature of disagreement. Our essay explores the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to help reduce legal disagreements. In any litigation, parties disagree over the facts, the law, or how the law applies to the facts. The source of the parties' disagreements matters. It may determine the extent to which AI can help resolve their disputes. AI is helpful in clarifying the parties’ misunderstanding over how well-defined questions of law apply to their facts. But AI may be less helpful when parties disagree on questions of fact where the prevailing facts dictate the legal outcome. The private nature of information underlying these factual disagreements typically fall outside the strengths of AI's computational leverage over publicly available data. A further complication: parties may disagree about which rule should govern the dispute, which can arise irrespective of whether they agree or disagree over questions of facts. Accordingly, while AI can provide clarity over legal precedent, it often may be insufficient to provide clarity over legal disputes. This article is part of the theme issue 'A complexity science approach to law and governance'.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%