Table of Contents

Comparative Law and Economics

Comparative Law and Economics

Research Handbooks in Comparative Law series

Edited by Theodore Eisenberg and Giovanni B. Ramello

Contemporary law and economics has greatly expanded its scope of inquiry as well as its sphere of influence. The extension to many idiosyncratic topics and issues that sometime lie outside the traditional domain of the discipline have fostered the emergence of a new consciousness better grasped by a comparative approach. The original contributions to this Research Handbook provide a glimpse of the new perspectives that enrich the law and economics methodology.

Chapter 8: Iron fist in a velvet glove? Judicial behavior in mixed courts

Valerie P. Hans and Anne Jolivet

Subjects: economics and finance, law and economics, law - academic, comparative law, law and economics

Extract

Judicial behavior has been a regular focus of theory and research in law and economics, in empirical legal studies, and in political science (Boyd, Epstein, and Martin 2010; Epstein, Landes, and Posner 2013; Teichman and Zamir 2014). Theorists and empirical researchers have examined the factors that influence judicial decision making in both trial and appeals courts, and have documented the extent to which judicial characteristics and judicial preferences are incorporated into verdicts and legal opinions. Some scholars analyze judicial decision making through the lens of rational choice theory (Epstein et al. 2013); others emphasize the importance of judges’ attitudes to their decisions (Segal and Spaeth 1993; 2002). One line of scholarship has revealed the susceptibility of judges to the heuristics and biases that afflict ordinary citizens (Rachlinski, Johnson, Wistrich, and Guthrie 2009; Teichman and Zamir 2014). Other research has discovered that the composition of appellate panels of judges significantly influences case outcomes (Eisenberg, Fisher, and Rosen-Zvi 2012; Lindquist, Martinek, and Hettinger 2007). Much of the existing empirical research on judicial behavior, however, has focused on the decision making of judges in common law jurisdictions.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information