Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Litigation Realities, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Litigation Realities, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
After both summarizing recent empirical work and presenting new observations on each of the six phases of a civil lawsuit (forum, pretrial, settlement, trial, judgment, and appeal), the authors draw a series of lessons for understanding and using empirical methods in the study of the legal system's operation. In so doing, they generate implications for current and projected policy debates concerning litigation, while identifying areas that demand further empirical work.
Plaintiphobia In The Appellate Courts: Civil Rights Really Do Differ From Negotiable Instruments, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Plaintiphobia In The Appellate Courts: Civil Rights Really Do Differ From Negotiable Instruments, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Professors Clermont and Eisenberg conducted a systematic analysis of appellate court behavior and report that defendants have a substantial advantage over plaintiffs on appeal. Their analysis attempted to control for different variables that may affect the decision to appeal or the appellate outcome, including case complexity, case type, amount in controversy, and whether there had been a judge or a jury trial. Once they accounted for these variables and explored and discarded various alternate explanations, they came to the conclusion that a defendants' advantage exists probably because of appellate judges' misperceptions that trial level adjudicators are pro-plaintiff.
Judge Harry Edwards: A Case In Point!, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Judge Harry Edwards: A Case In Point!, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Judge Harry Edwards dislikes empirical work that is not flattering to federal appellate judges. A few years ago Dean Richard Revesz published an empirical study of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit providing further support for the rather tame proposition that judges’ political orientation has some effect on outcome in some politically charged cases. A year later Judge Edwards published a criticism phrased in extreme terms. Dean Revesz then wrote a devastating reply by which he demonstrated that Judge Edwards “is simply wrong with respect to each of the numerous criticisms that he levels.” We believe …
Appeal From Jury Or Judge Trial: Defendants' Advantage, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Appeal From Jury Or Judge Trial: Defendants' Advantage, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
The prevailing "expert" opinion is that jury verdicts are largely immune to appellate revision. Using a database that combines all federal civil trials and appeals decided since 1988, we find that jury trials, as a group, are in fact not so special on appeal. But the data do show that defendants succeed more than plaintiffs on appeal from civil trials, and especially from jury trials. Defendants appealing their losses after trial by jury obtain reversals at a 31% rate, while losing plaintiffs succeed in only 13% of their appeals from jury trials. Both descriptive analyses of the results and more …
Anti-Plaintiff Bias In The Federal Appellate Courts, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Anti-Plaintiff Bias In The Federal Appellate Courts, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
A recent study of appellate outcomes reveals that defendants succeed significantly more often than plaintiffs on appeal from civil trials-especially from jury trials.