Law Commons^™

The Timing Of Opinion Formation By Jurors In Civil Cases: An Empirical Examination, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Mott, G. Thomas Munsterman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The question of when and how jurors form opinions about evidence presented at trial has been the focus of seemingly endless speculation. For lawyers, the question is how to capture the attention and approval of the jury at the earliest possible point in the trial. Their goal is to maximize the persuasiveness of their arguments--or at least to minimize the persuasiveness of those of the opposing side. Judges, in contrast, are more concerned about prejudgment. They regularly admonish jurors to suspend judgment until after all the evidence has been presented and after the jurors have been instructed on the law. …

How Much Justice Hangs In The Balance? A New Look At Hung Jury Rates, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, G. Thomas Munsterman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Reports of apparent increases in the number of hung juries in some jurisdictions have caused concern among policy makers. A 1995 report by the California District Attorneys Association cited hung jury rates in 1994 that exceeded 15 percent in some jurisdictions (the rates varied from 3 to 23 percent across the nine counties for which data were available). In 1996, the District of Columbia Superior Court reported a higher-than-expected hung jury rate of 11 percent. Why juries hang at these rates isn't clear, but some commentators have claimed that hung juries are the product of eccentric or nullifying holdout jurors …

Shopping For Judges: An Empirical Analysis Of Venue Choice In Large Chapter 11 Reorganizations, Theodore Eisenberg, Lynn M. Lopucki

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

For almost two decades, an embarrassing pattern of forum shopping has been developing in the highly visible world of big-case bankruptcy reorganization. Forum shopping--defined here as the act of filing in a court that does not serve the geographical area of the debtor's corporate headquarters--now occurs in more than half of all big-case bankruptcies. Two jurisdictions have attracted most of the forum shoppers. During the 1980s, when a large portion of the shopping was to New York, the lawyers involved asserted that New York was a natural venue because of its role as the country's financial capital and because so …

The Predictability Of Punitive Damages Awards In Published Opinions, The Impact Of Bmw V. Gore On Punitive Damages Awards, And Forecasting Which Punitive Awards Will Be Reduced, Theodore Eisenberg, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This article assesses the relation between compensatory damages and punitive damages in cases leading to published opinions and BMW v. Gore's impact on the patterns of punitive damages awards in these opinions. We find that punitive damages awards are considerably higher in cases leading to published opinions than in trial level cases. But the correlation between compensatory and punitive awards found in trial level data persists in published opinions and is all but indistinguishable from the correlation in trial level data. We find no significant difference in the pattern of awards before and after BMW and no significant difference …

Punitive Awards After Bmw, A New Capping System, And The Reported Opinion Bias, Theodore Eisenberg, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Capping punitive damages awards is a centerpiece of the tort reform movement. According to the American Tort Reform Association, as of June 30, 1996, forty-three states allowed punitive damages awards. Of these, twenty-nine states impose no caps on punitive damages and fourteen impose some form of cap. In states that cap punitive awards, the preferred method is to employ a simple multiple of the compensatory award. Eleven states rely on a multiple of the compensatory damages award. The most popular multiple is three times the compensatory award, but this is used by only five states. The capping multiples range from …

The Predictability Of Punitive Damages, Theodore Eisenberg, John Goerdt, Brian Ostrom, David Rottman, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Using one year of jury trial outcomes from 45 of the nation's most populous counties, this article shows a strong and statistically significant correlation between compensatory and punitive damages. These findings are replicated in 25 years of punitive damages awards from Cook County, Illinois, and California. In addition, we find no evidence that punitive damages awards are more likely when individuals sue businesses than when individuals sue individuals. With respect to award frequency, juries rarely award punitive damages and appear to be especially reluctant to do so in the areas of law that have captured the most attention, products liability …

The Litigious Plaintiff Hypothesis: Case Selection And Resolution, Theodore Eisenberg, Henry S. Farber

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The process through which cases are selected for litigation cannot be ignored because it yields a set of lawsuits and plaintiffs that is far from a random selection either of potential claims or of potential claimants. We present a theoretical framework for understanding the operation of this suit-selection process and its relationship to the underlying distribution of potential claims and claimants. The model has implications for the trial rate and the plaintiff win rate at trial. Our empirical analysis, using data on over 200,000 federal civil litigations, yields results that are strongly consistent with the theory.

Litigation Outcomes In State And Federal Courts: A Statistical Portrait, Theodore Eisenberg, John Goerdt, Brian Ostrom, David Rottman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

"U.S. Juries Grow Tougher on Plaintiffs in Lawsuits," the New York Times page-one headline reads. The story details how, in 1992, plaintiffs won 52 percent of the personal injury cases decided by jury verdicts, a decline from the 63 percent plaintiff success rate in 1989. The sound-byte explanations follow, including the notion that juries have learned that they, as part of the general population, ultimately pay the costs of high verdicts. Similar stories, reporting both increases and decreases in jury award levels, regularly make headlines. Jury Verdict Research, Inc. (JVR), a commercial service that sells case outcome information, often is …

Politics And The Judiciary: The Influence Of Judicial Background On Case Outcomes, Orley Ashenfelter, Theodore Eisenberg, Stewart J. Schwab

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

It is widely believed that the background and worldview of judges influence their decisions. This article uses the fact that judges are assigned their cases randomly to assess the effect of judicial background on the outcome of cases from the day-to-day docket in three federal trial courts. Unlike the political science findings of ideological influence in published opinions, we find little evidence that judges differ in their decisions with respect to the mass of case outcomes. Characteristics of the judges or the political party of the judge's appointing president are not significant predictors of judicial decisions.

Life-Cycle Justice: Accommodating Just Cause And Employment At Will, Stewart J. Schwab

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The Relationship Between Plaintiff Sucess Rates Before Trial And At Trial, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Legal cases that reach trial are a biased subset of underlying disputes. This makes it difficult to study the legal system by observing tried cases. This paper examines the relationship between plaintiff success at pretrial motion and trial stages across many categories of cases. The large, significant positive relationship between plaintiff success rates at these two procedural stages suggests that characteristics of case categories influence outcomes at both stages. Observers of a category of tried cases or cases resolved by motion can make informed judgments about how that category of cases fares at the other procedural stage.

Testing The Selection Effect: A New Theoretical Framework With Empirical Tests, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Recent law and economics scholarship has produced much theoretical and empirical work on how and why legal disputes are settled and litigated. One of the most significant developments in this literature, attributable to the work of William Baxter and the combined efforts of George Priest and Benjamin Klein, has been the formation of a theory about both the selection of disputes for trial and the rates of success that plaintiffs enjoy for those cases that are resolved at trial. The basic theory contains two components. The selection effect refers to the proposition that the selection of tried cases is not …

Litigation Models And Trial Outcomes In Civil Rights And Prisoner Cases, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In ideal circumstances, court cases are won or lost on their merits. But litigation does not proceed free from external social factors or from the characteristics of the participants. Factors other than the merits of cases, therefore, may help explain litigation outcomes and selection of disputes for trial. Possible factors include judge or jury bias, regional influence, the type of case, the quality of counsel, and the nature and resources of plaintiffs and defendants.

This Article uses both impressionistic conjecture about litigation and formal litigation theory to develop and test hypotheses about factors affecting outcomes in civil rights and prisoner …

What Shapes Perceptions Of The Federal Court System?, Theodore Eisenberg, Stewart J. Schwab

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Two hundred years is a long time. It is too long after formation of a court system to ask such basic questions as (1) what cases occupy the system, and (2) whether even informed professionals have a reasonable picture of what goes on within the system. Nonetheless, continuing debate about the volume and makeup of litigation in general and of federal court litigation in particular requires legal scholars to address these questions. Professor Marc Galanter's work on the litigation explosion questions central assumptions about the nature and growth of the federal docket. Our prior work undermines widely held views about …