Law Commons^™

Can Shared Decision-Making Reduce Medical Malpractice Litigation? A Systematic Review, Marie-Anne Durand, Benjamin Moulton, Elizabeth Cockle, Mala Mann, Glyn Elwyn

Dartmouth Scholarship

Background: To explore the likely influence and impact of shared decision-making on medical malpractice litigation and patients’ intentions to initiate litigation.

Methods: We included all observational, interventional and qualitative studies published in all languages, which assessed the effect or likely influence of shared decision-making or shared decision-making interventions on medical malpractice litigation or on patients ’ intentions to litigate. The following databases were searched from inception until January 2014: CINAHL, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Da tabase of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, HMIC, Lexis library, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Open SIGLE, PsycINFO and Web of Knowledge. We also hand …

Cognitive Fallacies Reading List, Curtis E.A. Karnow

Curtis E.A. Karnow

Reading list of books, articles, reports, and other material relating to cognitive fallacies, i.e., errors in reasoning which affect us all, including lawyers and judges. These errors in turn affect lawyers’ competence and judges’ ability to provide fair, impartial and well-reasoned decisions.

The Adversarial System, Three Lemons, And Cocaine: The Role Of Confirmation Bias, Curtis E.A. Karnow

Curtis E.A. Karnow

A short note on confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance as it affects decision making by lawyers and judges.

Supreme Court Section 1983 Developments: October 1998 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Ask And What Shall Ye Receive? A Guide For Using And Interpreting What Jurors Tell Us, Barbara O'Brien, Samuel R. Sommers, Phoebe C. Ellsworth

Articles

We review the extensive body of studies relying on jurors' self-reports in interviews or questionnaires, with a focus on potential threats to validity for researchers seeking to answer particularly provocative questions such as the influence of race in jury decision-making. We then offer a more focused case study comparison of interview and questionnaire data with behavioral data in the domain of race and juror decision-making. Our review suggests that the utility of data obtained from juror interviews and questionnaire responses varies considerably depending on the question under investigation. We close with an evaluation of the types of empirical questions most …

Corporate Law In The Shanghai People's Courts, 1992-2008: Judicial Autonomy In A Contemporary Authoritarian State, Nicholas C. Howson

Articles

In late 2005 China adopted a largely rewritten Company Law that radically increased the role of courts. This study, based on a review of more than 1000 Company Law-related disputes reported between 1992 and 2008 and extensive interactions with PRC officials and sitting judges, evaluates how the Shanghai People's Court system has fared over 15 years in corporate law adjudication. Although the Shanghai People's Courts show generally increasing technical competence and even intimations of political independence, their path toward institutional autonomy is inconsistent. Through 2006, the Shanghai Court system demonstrated significantly increased autonomy. After 2006 and enactment of the new …

Judicial Independence And Company Law In The Shanghai People's Courts, 1992-2008, Nicholas C. Howson

Book Chapters

This chapter draws on a detailed study of corporate law adjudication in Shanghai from 1992 to 2008. The purpose of the study was to better understand the demonstrated technical competence, institutional autonomy, and political independence of one court system in the People's Republic of China ("PRC") in a sector outside of the criminal law. The study consisted of a detailed examination and comparison of full-length corporate law opinions for more than 200 reported cases, a 2003 Shanghai High Court opinion on the 1994 Company Law (describing a decade of corporate case outcomes), a 2007 report on cases implementing the Company …

How Should We Study District Judge Decision-Making?, Pauline T. Kim, Margo Schlanger, Christina L. Boyd, Andrew D. Martin

Articles

Understanding judicial decision-making requires attention to the specific institutional settings in which judges operate. The choices available to judges are determined not only by the law and facts of the case but also by procedural context. The incentives and constraints shaping judges’ decision-making will vary depending on, for example, whether they have a life-appointment or are elected; whether they hear cases alone or with colleagues; and whether and under what circumstances their decisions might be altered, overturned, or undone by the actions of others. The basic insight that the institutional context matters has led to increasingly sophisticated studies of how …

Some Steps Between Attitudes And Verdicts, Phoebe C. Ellsworth

Book Chapters

Most research that has attempted to predict verdict preferences on the basis of stable juror characteristics, such as attitudes and personality traits, has found that individual differences among jurors are not very useful predictors, accounting for only a small proportion of the variance in verdict choices. Some commentators have therefore concluded that verdicts are overwhelmingly accounted for by "the weight of the evidence," and that differences among jurors have negligible effects. But there is a paradox here: In most cases the weight of the evidence is insufficient to produce firstballot unanimity in the jury (Hans & Vidmar, 1986; Hastie, Penrod, …

The Role Of "Stories" In Civil Jury Judgments, Reid Hastie

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

A brief review of psychological theories of juror decision making is followed by an introduction to "explanation-based" theories of judgment. Prior empirical studies of explanation-based processes in juror decision making are then reviewed. An original empirical study of jurors' judgments concerning liability for punitive damages is presented to illustrate the explanation-based approach to civil decisions.

The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions: The Views Of Trial Participants, Judges, And Jurors, Valerie P. Hans, Paula L. Hannaford, G. Thomas Munslerman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In 1995, the Arizona Supreme Court reformed the jury trial process by allowing civil jurors to discuss the evidence presented during trial prior to their formal deliberations. This Article examines and evaluates the theoretical, legal, and policy issues raised by this reform and presents the early results of afield experiment that tested the impact of trial discussions. Jurors, judges, attorneys, and litigants in civil jury trials in Arizona were questioned regarding their observations, experiences, and reactions during trial as well as what they perceived to be the benefits and drawback of juror discussions. The data revealed that the majority of …

Creating A Seamless Transition From Jury Box To Jury Room For More Effective Decision Making, Annie King Phillips

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Why am I writing here? I am not a judge or lawyer, and I may never be. I don't even play one on TV. In searching for an answer to this question, it came to mind that at sometime in everyone's life, there is a need to enter the court system-as a victim, offender, witness, court staff or juror. The interactions among these persons impact the effective administration of justice in our court system. Every two years for the past eighteen years (like the tick of a clock), I am summoned to jury duty at either the District of Columbia …

Supreme Court Section 1983 Developments: October 1998 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Sticks And Stones, Phoebe C. Ellsworth

Articles

I believe that research should be refuted by research. More and more of our scarce journal space is being taken up by attacks, rebuttals, and rebuttals to the rebuttals, often ending with a whimper of recognition that the adversaries were not so very far apart to begin with, and that the only way (if possible) to resolve the disagreement is through empirical research. Communication of scientific disagreement does not require a published article. Grant proposals and manuscripts submitted to refereed journals like this one are sent out to reviewers, who provide written evaluations that are communicated to the author. Papers …