Civil Procedure Commons^™

What's Half A Lung Worth? Civil Jurors' Accounts Of Their Award Decision Making, Nicole L. Mott, Valerie P. Hans, Lindsay Simpson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Jury awards are often criticized as being arbitrary and excessive. This paper speaks to that controversy, reporting data from interviews with civil jurors' accounts of the strategies that juries use and the factors that they consider in arriving at a collective award. Jurors reported difficulty in deciding on awards, describing it as "the hardest part" of jury service and were surprised the court did not provide more guidance to them. Relatively few jurors entered the jury deliberation room with a specified award figure in mind. Once in the deliberation room, however, they reported discussing a variety of relevant factors such …

Justice Delayed?: An Empirical Analysis Of Civil Case Disposition Time, Michael Heise

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Article addresses the need to understand better our civil justice system by exploring possible determinants of disposition time for civil cases that reach a jury trial. This study uses one year of civil jury case outcomes from 45 of the nation's 75 most populous counties and identifies locale as one important variable, along with certain case types, results, and characteristics. An empirically moored understanding of the causes of case disposition time will assist public policy and reform efforts that seek to make civil justice speedier and, as a consequence, more inexpensive and just. Findings from this study call into …

Permitting Jury Discussions During Trial: Impact Of The Arizona Reform, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, G. Thomas Munsterman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

A field experiment tested the effect of an Arizona civil jury reform that allows jurors to discuss evidence among themselves during the trial. Judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants completed questionnaires in trials randomly assigned to either a Trial Discussions condition, in which jurors were permitted to discuss the evidence during trial, or a No Discussions condition, in which jurors were prohibited from discussing evidence during trial according to traditional admonitions. Judicial agreement with jury verdicts did not differ between conditions. Permitting jurors to discuss the evidence did affect the degree of certainty that jurors reported about their preferences at the …

The Timing Of Opinion Formation By Jurors In Civil Cases: An Empirical Examination, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Mott, G. Thomas Munsterman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The question of when and how jurors form opinions about evidence presented at trial has been the focus of seemingly endless speculation. For lawyers, the question is how to capture the attention and approval of the jury at the earliest possible point in the trial. Their goal is to maximize the persuasiveness of their arguments--or at least to minimize the persuasiveness of those of the opposing side. Judges, in contrast, are more concerned about prejudgment. They regularly admonish jurors to suspend judgment until after all the evidence has been presented and after the jurors have been instructed on the law. …

Evidence: 1998-1999 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Civil Justice Reform And Empirical Legal Scholarship: A Reply, Michael Heise

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

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 …

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 …

The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions: The View Of Trial Participants, Judges, And Jurors, Valerie P. Hans, Paula Hannaford-Agor, G. Thomas Munsterman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

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 the theoretical, legal, and policy issues raised by this reform and presents the early results of a field 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 judges …

Evidence: 1997-1998 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Measuring The Deterrent Effect Of Punitive Damages, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Professor Viscusi's article differs from the dominant mode of law and economics scholarship on punitive damages. The usual punitive damages article contains purely theoretical considerations about when punitive damages are appropriate and about their optimal level; no effort is made to ascertain whether the existing pattern of punitive awards corresponds with the theory. This is part of a larger problem: the dearth of empirical evidence in law and economics scholarship. Viscusi, on the other hand, provides empirical tests of whether punitive damages accomplish their goals, and he makes creative use of publicly available data sources. For the goal of his …

Do Case Outcomes Really Reveal Anything About The Legal System? Win Rates And Removal Jurisdiction, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

General Observations on Interpreting Win-Rate Data Properly. Many empirical legal studies use data on plaintiffs' rate of success, because of those data's ready availability and apparent import. Yet these "win rates" are probably the slipperiest of all judicial data. Win rates are inherently ambiguous because of the case-selection effect. The litigants' selection of the cases brought produces a biased sample from the mass of underlying disputes. The settlement process, usually conducted by rational and knowledgeable persons who take into account and thereby neutralize the very factor that one would like to study, produces a residue of litigated cases for which …

Evidence: 1996-1997 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Punitive Awards After Bmw, A New Capping System, And The Reported Opinion Bias, Theodore Eisenberg, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Capping punitive damages awards is a centerpiece of the tort reform movement. According to the American Tort Reform Association, as of June 30, 1996, forty-three states allowed punitive damages awards. Of these, twenty-nine states impose no caps on punitive damages and fourteen impose some form of cap. In states that cap punitive awards, the preferred method is to employ a simple multiple of the compensatory award. Eleven states rely on a multiple of the compensatory damages award. The most popular multiple is three times the compensatory award, but this is used by only five states. The capping multiples range from …

Juries: Arbiters Or Arbitrary?, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The Predictability Of Punitive Damages, Theodore Eisenberg, John Goerdt, Brian Ostrom, David Rottman, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Using one year of jury trial outcomes from 45 of the nation's most populous counties, this article shows a strong and statistically significant correlation between compensatory and punitive damages. These findings are replicated in 25 years of punitive damages awards from Cook County, Illinois, and California. In addition, we find no evidence that punitive damages awards are more likely when individuals sue businesses than when individuals sue individuals. With respect to award frequency, juries rarely award punitive damages and appear to be especially reluctant to do so in the areas of law that have captured the most attention, products liability …

Simplifying The Choice Of Forum: A Reply, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

We have three things to think about here, as the real estate agents say—“location, location, location.” Accordingly, the two of us have engaged for several years in empirical studies aimed at gauging the effect of forum on case outcome. The results to date strongly suggest that forum really matters. An early piece of the puzzle fell into place in our study of venue. In that article, we examined the benefits and costs of the federal courts scheme of transfer of civil venue “in the interest of justice.” Ours was a pretty straightforward and simple cost-benefit analysis, but we supported it …

The Litigious Plaintiff Hypothesis: Case Selection And Resolution, Theodore Eisenberg, Henry S. Farber

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The process through which cases are selected for litigation cannot be ignored because it yields a set of lawsuits and plaintiffs that is far from a random selection either of potential claims or of potential claimants. We present a theoretical framework for understanding the operation of this suit-selection process and its relationship to the underlying distribution of potential claims and claimants. The model has implications for the trial rate and the plaintiff win rate at trial. Our empirical analysis, using data on over 200,000 federal civil litigations, yields results that are strongly consistent with the theory.

Rediscovering Discovery Ethics, W. Bradley Wendel

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Litigation Outcomes In State And Federal Courts: A Statistical Portrait, Theodore Eisenberg, John Goerdt, Brian Ostrom, David Rottman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

"U.S. Juries Grow Tougher on Plaintiffs in Lawsuits," the New York Times page-one headline reads. The story details how, in 1992, plaintiffs won 52 percent of the personal injury cases decided by jury verdicts, a decline from the 63 percent plaintiff success rate in 1989. The sound-byte explanations follow, including the notion that juries have learned that they, as part of the general population, ultimately pay the costs of high verdicts. Similar stories, reporting both increases and decreases in jury award levels, regularly make headlines. Jury Verdict Research, Inc. (JVR), a commercial service that sells case outcome information, often is …

Xenophilia In American Courts, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Foreigner! The word says it all. Verging on the politically incorrect, the expression is full of connotation and implication. A foreigner will face bias. By such a thought process, many people believe that litigants have much to fear in courts foreign to them. In particular, non-Americans fare badly in American courts. Foreigners believe this. Even Americans believe this.

Such views about American courts are understandable. After all, the grant of alienage jurisdiction to the federal courts, both original and removal, constitutes an official assumption that xenophobic bias is present in state courts. As James Madison said of state courts: “We …

Courts In Cyberspace, Theodore Eisenberg, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Trial By Jury Or Judge: Which Is Speedier?, Theodore Eisenberg, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Many take as a given that jury-tried cases consume more time than judge-tried cases. Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit, for example, opines: “Court queues are almost always greatest for parties seeking civil jury trials. This makes economic sense. Such trials are more costly than bench trials both because of jury fees (which … understate the true social costs of the jury) and because a case normally takes longer to try to a jury than to a judge …. Parties are therefore “charged” more for jury trials by being made to wait in line longer.”

A close reading reveals …

Exorcising The Evil Of Forum-Shopping, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Most of the business of litigation comprises pretrial disputes. A common and important dispute is over where adjudication should take place. Civil litigators deal with nearly as many change-of-venue motions as trials. The battle over venue often constitutes the critical issue in a case.

The American way is to provide plaintiffs with a wide choice of venues for suit. But the American way has its drawbacks. To counter these drawbacks, an integral part of our court systems, and in particular the federal court system, is the scheme of transfer of venue "in the interest of justice." However, the leading evaluative …

The Federal Rules Of Evidence--Past, Present, And Future: A Twenty-Year Perspective, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Essay surveys three major transformations in state and federal rules of evidence since the introduction of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rules have not only inspired a movement toward codification in the states, they have also liberalized the admission of expert testimony and hearsay. This partially explains thirteen states' reluctance to codify. Judges have furthered this trend by admitting far more discretionary hearsay evidence than Congress intended. Professor Rossi doubts this expansion of the hearsay exceptions would have occurred without the adoption of the FRE and suggests that the newly formed Advisory Committee will produce greater substantive changes …

Politics And The Judiciary: The Influence Of Judicial Background On Case Outcomes, Orley Ashenfelter, Theodore Eisenberg, Stewart J. Schwab

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

It is widely believed that the background and worldview of judges influence their decisions. This article uses the fact that judges are assigned their cases randomly to assess the effect of judicial background on the outcome of cases from the day-to-day docket in three federal trial courts. Unlike the political science findings of ideological influence in published opinions, we find little evidence that judges differ in their decisions with respect to the mass of case outcomes. Characteristics of the judges or the political party of the judge's appointing president are not significant predictors of judicial decisions.

Individualized Justice, Mass Torts, And "Settlement Class Actions": An Introduction, Roger C. Cramton

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Perceptions Of Civil Justice: The Litigation Crisis Attitudes Of Civil Jurors, Valerie P. Hans, William S. Lofquist

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Public perceptions that the civil justice system is in crisis are apparently widespread, but little is known about the causes or correlates of such views. This article analyzes the litigation crisis attitudes of a sample of civil jurors. Like the public, jurors endorsed a number of statements suggesting that there is a litigation crisis. Factor analysis identified two independent components: general concern over excessive litigation, and criticism of the civil jury. Litigation crisis views were found in all demographic and attitudinal subgroups. However, attitudes about the civil justice system were related to the respondent's political efficacy, claims consciousness, belief in …

Jurors' Views Of Civil Lawyers: Implications For Courtroom Communication, Valerie P. Hans, Krista Sweigart

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In courtroom communication, lawyers play a key role. During presentations of opening statements and closing arguments, and through examination and cross-examination of witnesses, lawyers communicate the merits of the case that the jury is to decide. Yet there is surprisingly little systematic information about how jurors perceive lawyers' communication activities. This Article presents new information based upon an interview study with civil jurors about how jurors view and evaluate attorneys and their courtroom behavior. The results of this study are used to make recommendations about enhancing the effectiveness of lawyers' communications.

The Neumeier-Schultz Rules: How Logical A "Next Stage In The Evolution Of The Law" After Babcock?, Gary J. Simson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.