Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Docketology, District Courts, And Doctrine, David A. Hoffman, Alan J. Izenman, Jeffrey R. Lidicker
Docketology, District Courts, And Doctrine, David A. Hoffman, Alan J. Izenman, Jeffrey R. Lidicker
David A Hoffman
Empirical legal scholars have traditionally modeled judicial opinion writing by assuming that judges act rationally, seeking to maximize their influence by writing opinions in politically important cases. Support for this hypothesis has reviewed published opinions, finding that civil rights and other “hot” topics are more to be discussed than other issues. This orthodoxy comforts consumers of legal opinions, because it suggests that opinions are largely representative of judicial work. The orthodoxy is substantively and methodologically flawed. This paper starts by assuming that judges are generally risk averse with respect to reversal, and that they provide opinions when they believe that …
Nullificatory Juries, David A. Hoffman, Kaimipono D. Wenger
Nullificatory Juries, David A. Hoffman, Kaimipono D. Wenger
David A Hoffman
In this Article, we argue that current debates on the legitimacy of punitive damages would benefit from a comparison with jury nullification in criminal trials. We discuss critiques of punitive damages and of jury nullification, noting the surprising similarities in the arguments scholars use to attack these (superficially) distinct outcomes of the jury guarantee. Not only are the criticisms alike, the institutions of punitive damages and jury nullification also turn out to have many similarities: both are, we suggest, examples of what we call "nullificatory juries." We discuss the features of such juries, and consider recent behavioral data relating to …