Book contents
- Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the World
- Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the World
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- 1 Do Patent Law Suits Target Invalid Patents?
- 2 Platform Procedure
- 3 Speedy Adjudication in Hard Cases and Low Settlement Rates in Easy Cases
- 4 How Lower Courts Respond to a Change in a Legal Rule
- 5 Career Judge System and Court Decision Biases
- 6 Judges Avoid Ex Post but Not Ex Ante Inefficiency
- 7 When Winning Is Not Enough
- 8 The Evolution of Case Influence in Modern Consumer Standard Form Contracts
- 9 Judging Insurance Antidiscrimination Law
- 10 Are Judges Harsher with Repeat Offenders?
- 11 Does Efficiency Trump Legality?
- Index
- References
8 - The Evolution of Case Influence in Modern Consumer Standard Form Contracts
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 December 2019
Edited by
Book contents
- Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the World
- Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the World
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- 1 Do Patent Law Suits Target Invalid Patents?
- 2 Platform Procedure
- 3 Speedy Adjudication in Hard Cases and Low Settlement Rates in Easy Cases
- 4 How Lower Courts Respond to a Change in a Legal Rule
- 5 Career Judge System and Court Decision Biases
- 6 Judges Avoid Ex Post but Not Ex Ante Inefficiency
- 7 When Winning Is Not Enough
- 8 The Evolution of Case Influence in Modern Consumer Standard Form Contracts
- 9 Judging Insurance Antidiscrimination Law
- 10 Are Judges Harsher with Repeat Offenders?
- 11 Does Efficiency Trump Legality?
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter explores the evolution of judicial influence using a hand-collected data set of all cases until 2016 that address the enforceability of clickwrap, shrinkwrap, and browsewrap contracts as well as their out-of-state influence over time. A foundational theory conceptualizes precedent as an investment that yields valuable information to subsequent courts that depreciates over time, as new circumstances and innovations make such precedent less helpful for later courts. Empirical research on judicial citations has found a “superstar” or “tournament winner” effect, whereby a handful of cases garner almost all citations for a given question. How do tournament winners fare over time? I find that the citation universe is indeed dominated by “tournament winners.” These cases, which tend to be decided by circuit court judges, influence other courts from the date they are decided. Instead of experiencing depreciation, however, I find that their influence continues to grow, even over cases that are hierarchically more important. In addition, cases tend to converge towards a particular rule or standard over time. The results enrich our understanding of the evolution of judicial influence and help inform theories of the evolution of precedent and the common law.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the WorldEmpirical Inquires, pp. 204 - 222Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Bar-Gill, Oren, Ben-Shahar, Omri, and Marotta-Wurgler, Florencia. 2017. Searching for the Common Law: An Empirical Approach to the Restatement of Consumer Contracts. University of Chicago Law Review 84: 7–35.Google Scholar
Bern, Roger C. 2004. “Terms Later” Contracting: Bad Economics, Bad Morals, and a Bad Idea for a Uniform Law, Judge Easterbrook Notwithstanding. Journal of Law and Policy 12: 641–796.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A. 1985. The Transmission of Legal Precedent: A Study of State Supreme Courts. American Political Science Review 79: 178–94.Google Scholar
Cardozo, Benjamin N. 1921. The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Choi, Stephen J., and Gulati, G. Mitu. 2004a. A Tournament of Judges? California Law Review 92: 299–322.Google Scholar
Choi, Stephen J., and Gulati, G. Mitu. 2004b. Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: An Empirical Ranking of Judge Performance. Southern California Law Review 78: 23–118.Google Scholar
Choi, Stephen J., and Gulati, G. Mitu. 2005. Mr. Justice Posner? Unpacking the Statistics. New York University Annual Survey of American Law 61: 19–43.Google Scholar
Choi, Stephen J., Gulati, G. Mitu, and Posner, Eric A., 2009. Judicial Evaluations and Information Forcing: Ranking State High Courts and Their Judges. Duke Law Journal 58: 1313–81.Google Scholar
Cooter, Robert, Kornhauser, Lewis, and Lane, David. 1979. Liability Rules, Limited Information, and the Role of Precedent. Bell Journal of Economics 10: 366–73.Google Scholar
Daughety, Andrew F., and Reinganum, Jennifer F.. 1999. Stampede to Judgment: Persuasive Influence and Herding Behavior by Courts. American Law and Economics Review 1: 158–89.Google Scholar
Farber, Daniel A. 2005. Supreme Court Selection and Measures of Past Judicial Performance. Florida State University Law Review 32: 1175–96.Google Scholar
Gennaioli, Nicola, and Shleifer, Andrei. 2007. The Evolution of Common Law. Journal of Political Economy 115: 43–68.Google Scholar
Gillette, Clayton P. 1998. Lock-In Effects in Law and Norms. Boston University Law Review 78: 813–42.Google Scholar
Gulati, Mitu, and Sanchez, Veronica. 2002. Giants in a World of Pygmies? Testing the Superstar Hypothesis with Judicial Opinions in Casebooks. Iowa Law Review 87: 1141–212.Google Scholar
Hadfield, Gillian. 1992. Bias in the Evolution of Legal Rules. Georgetown Law Journal 80: 583–616.Google Scholar
Hathaway, Oona. 2001. Path Dependence in the Law: The Course and Pattern of Legal Change in a Common Law System. Iowa Law Review 86: 101–65.Google Scholar
Issacharoff, Samuel, and Marotta-Wurgler, Florencia. 2019. The Hollowed Out Common Law. 67 UCLA Law Review (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis A. 1996. Notes on the Logic of Legal Change. Pp. 169–83 in Social Rules: Origin; Character; Logic; Change, edited by Braybrooke, David. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Kuran, Timur and Sunstein, Cass. 1999. Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation. Stanford Law Review 51: 683–768.Google Scholar
Landes, William M., Lessig, Lawrence, and Solimine, Michael E. 1998. Judicial Influence: A Citation Analysis of Federal Courts of Appeal Judges. Journal of Legal Studies 27: 271.Google Scholar
Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A.. 1976. Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Journal of Law and Economics 19(2): 249–307.Google Scholar
Niblett, Anthony, Posner, Richard A, and Shleifer, Andrei. 2010. The Evolution of a Legal Rule. Journal of Legal Studies 39: 325–58.Google Scholar
Petit, Christopher L. 1998. The Problem with “Money Now, Terms Later”: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg and the Enforceability of “Shrinkwrap” Software Licenses. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 31: 325–52.Google Scholar
Priest, George L. 1977. The Common Law Process and the Selection of Efficient Rules. Journal of Legal Studies 6: 65–82.Google Scholar
Priest, George L., and Klein, Benjamin. 1984. The Selection of Disputes for Litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 13: 1–55.Google Scholar
Rubin, Paul. 1977. Why Is the Common Law Efficient? Journal of Legal Studies 6: 51–63.Google Scholar
Shavell, Steven. 1996. Any Frequency of Plaintiff Victory at Trial Is Possible. Journal of Legal Studies 25: 493–501.Google Scholar
Stone, Julius. 1985. Precedent and Law: Dynamics of Common Law Growth. Sydney: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Talley, Eric L. 1999. Precedential Cascades: A Critical Appraisal. Southern California Law Review 73: 87–138.Google Scholar