Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Israel's Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction: An Empirical Study, Theodore Eisenberg, Talia Fisher, Issi Rosen-Zvi
Israel's Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction: An Empirical Study, Theodore Eisenberg, Talia Fisher, Issi Rosen-Zvi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
This Essay reports the results of an empirical study of the Israel Supreme Court (ISC). It covers the outcomes of 3,562 cases (as of this writing), all decided in 2006 and 2007, and describes the cases by subject area, litigant-pair characteristics, and source of jurisdiction - mandatory or discretionary. In mandatory-jurisdiction cases ending with clear affirmances or reversals, the ISC affirmed lower court rulings in about 75% of district court criminal case appeals and about 67% of district court civil case appeals. In discretionary- jurisdiction cases, the ISC rarely granted review. It agreed to review about 6 % of petitions …
Reconfiguring Law Reports And The Concept Of Precedent For A Digital Age, Peter W. Martin
Reconfiguring Law Reports And The Concept Of Precedent For A Digital Age, Peter W. Martin
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Adherence to the “rule of law” entails a strong commitment to consistency - a belief that throughout a jurisdiction and across time judges should treat like cases alike. For over a century, the U.S. judiciary's pursuit of this aim has relied principally upon print law reports. With unsettling rapidity, digital technology has dislodged that system, in practical fact, if not yet in the way lawyers and judges talk and think about case law. This article explores gains one might hope for from a “judicial consistency” system liberated from the constraints of print, likely effects on concepts of precedent, as well …
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.