Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Empirical legal studies (4)
- Appeals (3)
- Appellate courts (2)
- Federal courts (2)
- Plaintiffs (2)
-
- Trials (2)
- Altruistic director (1)
- Bronx effect (1)
- Business judgment rule (1)
- Civil trials (1)
- Clear and convincing evidence standard (1)
- Compensatory awards (1)
- Duty of care (1)
- Duty of loyalty (1)
- Empirical research (1)
- Fiduciary duty (1)
- Formalism (1)
- Forums (1)
- Harry Edwards (1)
- Homo economicus (1)
- John Langbein (1)
- Judge and jury trial outcomes (1)
- Judge-jury differences (1)
- Judgments (1)
- Juror comprehension (1)
- Juror discussions reform (1)
- Jury decision making (1)
- Jury deliberation (1)
- Jury instructions (1)
- Jury reforms (1)
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
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.
Reconciling Experimental Incoherence With Real-World Coherence In Punitive Damages, Theodore Eisenberg, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Martin T. Wells
Reconciling Experimental Incoherence With Real-World Coherence In Punitive Damages, Theodore Eisenberg, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Martin T. Wells
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Experimental evidence generated in controlled laboratory studies suggests that the legal system in general, and punitive damages awards in particular, should display an incoherent pattern. According to the prediction, inexperienced decisionmakers, such as juries, should fail to convert their qualitative judgments of defendants' conduct into consistent, meaningful dollar amounts. This Article tests this prediction and finds modest support for the thesis that experience across different types of cases will lead to greater consistency in awards. Despite this support, numerous studies of damage awards in real cases detect a generally sensible pattern of damage awards. This Article tries to reconcile the …
Trial Outcomes And Demographics: Is There A Bronx Effect?, Theodore Eisenberg, Martin T. Wells
Trial Outcomes And Demographics: Is There A Bronx Effect?, Theodore Eisenberg, Martin T. Wells
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Minorities favor injured plaintiffs and give them inflated awards. This folk wisdom in the legal community influences choice of trial locale and the screening of jurors. A Los Angeles court is said to be known by local lawyers as "the bank" because of the frequency and size of its anti-corporate awards. A newspaper article summarizing court results suggests, somewhat jokingly, that the "Bronx County Courthouse should post a warning: People who get sued here run an increased risk of suffering staggering losses." Beliefs about the influence of factors other than race, such as income and urbanization, also are common.
This …
A Comparative View Of Standards Of Proof, Kevin M. Clermont, Emily Sherwin
A Comparative View Of Standards Of Proof, Kevin M. Clermont, Emily Sherwin
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
In common-law systems, the standard of proof for ordinary civil cases requires the party who bears the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts alleged are true. In contrast, the prevailing standard of proof for civil cases in civil-law systems is indistinguishable from the standard for criminal cases: the judge must be firmly convinced that the facts alleged are true. This striking difference in common-law and civil-law procedures has received very little attention from either civilian or comparative scholars.
The preponderance standard applied in common-law systems is openly probabilistic and produces, on average, …
"Speaking Rights": Evaluating Juror Discussions During Civil Trials, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, G. Thomas Munsterman
"Speaking Rights": Evaluating Juror Discussions During Civil Trials, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, G. Thomas Munsterman
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Permitting jurors to discuss evidence during civil trials may facilitate understanding and provide an outlet for their thoughts and questions, and does not appear to lead to prejudgment or prejudice.
Juries, Judges, And Punitive Damages: An Empirical Study, Theodore Eisenberg, Neil Lafountain, Brian Ostrom, David Rottman, Martin T. Wells
Juries, Judges, And Punitive Damages: An Empirical Study, Theodore Eisenberg, Neil Lafountain, Brian Ostrom, David Rottman, Martin T. Wells
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
This Article, the first broad-based analysis of punitive damages in judge-tried cases, compares judge and jury performance in awarding punitive damages and in setting their levels. Data covering one year of judge and jury trial outcomes from forty-five of the nation's largest counties yield no substantial evidence that judges and juries differ in the rate at which they award punitive damages or in the central relation between the size of punitive awards and compensatory awards. The relation between punitive and compensatory awards in jury trials is strikingly similar to the relation in judge trials. For a given level of compensatory …
In Praise Of Procedure: An Economic And Behavioral Defense Of Smith V. Van Gorkom And The Business Judgment Rule, Lynn A. Stout
In Praise Of Procedure: An Economic And Behavioral Defense Of Smith V. Van Gorkom And The Business Judgment Rule, Lynn A. Stout
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
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 …
Clear And Convincing Evidence Of Testamentary Intent: The Search For A Compromise Between Formality And Adjudicative Justice, Emily Sherwin
Clear And Convincing Evidence Of Testamentary Intent: The Search For A Compromise Between Formality And Adjudicative Justice, Emily Sherwin
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.