Prior federal civil appellate studies show that appeals courts overturn jury verdicts more than bench decisions and that defendants fare better than plaintiffs on appeal. Attitudinal and selection effect hypotheses may explain the appellate court tilt favoring defendants. This study presents the first statistical models of the appeals process for a comprehensive set of state court civil trials to test theories on appellate outcomes. Using data from 46 large counties on 8,038 trials and 549 concluded appeals, we find that appellate reversal rates for jury trials and defendant appeals exceed reversal rates for bench trials and plaintiff appeals. The reversal rate for plaintiff appeals is 21.5 percent, compared with 41.5 percent for defendant ...
Multiple studies find that plaintiffs who lose at trial and subsequently appeal are less successful ...
Multiple studies find that plaintiffs who lose at trial and subsequently appeal are less successful ...
Although few dispute the appellate process\u27s centrality to justice systems, especially in the cri...
Prior federal civil appellate studies show that appeals courts overturn jury verdicts more than benc...
Prior federal and state civil appeals studies show that appeals courts overturn jury verdicts more t...
Two findings dominate prior empirical studies of federal civil appeals. First, appeals courts are mo...
The objective of this paper is to present a simple but flexible theoretical model of the adjudicatio...
Every state provides appellate review of criminal judgments, yet little research examines which fact...
Federal data sets covering district court and appellate court civil cases for cases terminating in f...
The prevailing expert opinion is that jury verdicts are largely immune to appellate revision. Usin...
Professors Clermont and Eisenberg conducted a systematic analysis of appellate court behavior and re...
In a recent set of articles, Professor Kevin Clermont and Professor Theodore Eisenberg advance the c...
A recent study of appellate outcomes reveals that defendants succeed significantly more often than p...
One of the most striking features of appellate courts in the United States is also one of the least ...
Multiple studies find that plaintiffs who lose at trial and subsequently appeal are less successful ...
Multiple studies find that plaintiffs who lose at trial and subsequently appeal are less successful ...
Although few dispute the appellate process\u27s centrality to justice systems, especially in the cri...
Prior federal civil appellate studies show that appeals courts overturn jury verdicts more than benc...
Prior federal and state civil appeals studies show that appeals courts overturn jury verdicts more t...
Two findings dominate prior empirical studies of federal civil appeals. First, appeals courts are mo...
The objective of this paper is to present a simple but flexible theoretical model of the adjudicatio...
Every state provides appellate review of criminal judgments, yet little research examines which fact...
Federal data sets covering district court and appellate court civil cases for cases terminating in f...
The prevailing expert opinion is that jury verdicts are largely immune to appellate revision. Usin...
Professors Clermont and Eisenberg conducted a systematic analysis of appellate court behavior and re...
In a recent set of articles, Professor Kevin Clermont and Professor Theodore Eisenberg advance the c...
A recent study of appellate outcomes reveals that defendants succeed significantly more often than p...
One of the most striking features of appellate courts in the United States is also one of the least ...
Multiple studies find that plaintiffs who lose at trial and subsequently appeal are less successful ...
Multiple studies find that plaintiffs who lose at trial and subsequently appeal are less successful ...
Although few dispute the appellate process\u27s centrality to justice systems, especially in the cri...