Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Series

Empirical legal studies

Cornell University Law School

1999

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

How Much Justice Hangs In The Balance? A New Look At Hung Jury Rates, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, G. Thomas Munsterman Oct 1999

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 May 1999

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 …


Judicial Decisionmaking In Federal Products Liability Cases, 1978-1997, Theodore Eisenberg Jan 1999

Judicial Decisionmaking In Federal Products Liability Cases, 1978-1997, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In 1992, Professor James Henderson and I wrote that, throughout the 1980s, a quiet, pro-defendant revolution in products liability had occurred. That revolution was likely largely the product of a "widespread, independent shift in judicial attitudes." It was not discernable in cases tried before juries. The federal data used in that study were available through 1989. Also in 1992, using the same database, Professor Kevin Clermont and I wrote about the surprising relation between plaintiff win rates in judge and jury trials in products liability cases. Plaintiffs prevailed at a higher rate before judges than they did before juries. Comparable …


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 Jan 1999

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 …