Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1080563
 
 

Citations (6)



 
 

Footnotes (97)



 


 



Reversal, Dissent, and Variability in State Supreme Courts: The Centrality of Jurisdictional Source


Theodore Eisenberg


Cornell University - Law School

Geoffrey P. Miller


New York University School of Law

January 2008

NYU School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper No. 08-01
NYU School of Law, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 08-01
Cornell Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series

Abstract:     
State Supreme Courts (SSCs) exercise two major sources of authority: mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction. This article assesses 7,055 SSC cases decided with written opinions in 2003 to provide the first comprehensive study of the relation between jurisdictional source and SSC performance. Approximately half the cases were discretionary and half were mandatory. Jurisdictional source is associated with several important aspects of SSC behavior. Aggregated across states, 51.6 percent of discretionary jurisdiction cases resulted in reversal compared to 28.1 percent for mandatory cases. Dissent rates also vary by jurisdictional source: 26.7 percent of discretionary cases generated at least one dissenting opinion compared to 18.8 percent of mandatory cases. Striking interstate variation overlays the mandatory-discretionary distinction. Reversal rates in SSC discretionary jurisdiction cases ranged from 88 percent in Texas to 31 percent in Ohio. Across courts with substantial mandatory jurisdiction, reversal rates ranged from 68 percent in Arizona to 13 percent in Florida and 9 percent in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. These results are robust to models that account for state and case category effects. Surprisingly, after controlling for state and case category, discretionary case opinions are short than mandatory case opinions. Our evidence suggests that studies of SSC outcomes, dissent patterns, judicial policy preferences, and other characteristics should take account of jurisdictional source.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 42

Keywords: courts, jurisdiction, selection effects

JEL Classification: K10, K20, K30, K40

working papers series





Download This Paper

Date posted: January 6, 2008 ; Last revised: March 17, 2008

Suggested Citation

Eisenberg, Theodore and Miller, Geoffrey P., Reversal, Dissent, and Variability in State Supreme Courts: The Centrality of Jurisdictional Source (January 2008). NYU School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper No. 08-01; NYU School of Law, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 08-01; Cornell Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1080563 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1080563

Contact Information

Theodore Eisenberg (Contact Author)
Cornell University - Law School ( email )
524 College Ave
Myron Taylor Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
United States
607-255-6477 (Phone)
607-255-7193 (Fax)
Geoffrey P. Miller
New York University School of Law ( email )
Center for the Study of Central Banks
40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012-1099
United States
212-998-6329 (Phone)
212-995-4590 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,465
Downloads: 200
Download Rank: 91,225
Citations:  6
Footnotes:  97
People who downloaded this paper also downloaded:
1. Why (and When) Judges Dissent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis
By Lee Epstein, William Landes, ...

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.344 seconds