Plaintiphobia in State Courts? An Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal
Cornell University - Law School
Cornell Law School
Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 38, 2008
Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-006
Two findings dominate prior empirical studies of federal civil appeals. First, appeals courts are more likely to disrupt jury verdicts than bench decisions. Second, trial court defendants fare better than plaintiffs on appeal. Theory supplies two general hypotheses - the attitudinal and selection effect hypotheses - that may explain the appellate court tilt favoring defendants in federal civil appeals. This study exploits a uniquely comprehensive database of state court trials and civil appeals, presents the first statistical models of the appeals process for a comprehensive set of state court civil trials, and provides another empirical test of the theories on appellate outcomes. Using data from 46 large counties consisting of 8,038 trials and 549 concluded appeals, we find that state court appellate reversal rates for jury trials and appeals by defendants exceed the reversal rates for bench trials and appeals by plaintiffs. The reversal rate for trials appealed by plaintiffs is 21.5% compared to 41.5% for trial outcomes appealed by defendants. The reversal rate for jury trials is 33.7% compared to 27.5% for judge trials. Both descriptive analyses as well as more formal models point support appellate judges' attitudes toward trial-level adjudicators as an important explanation for these asymmetric outcomes of civil appeals in state courts.
Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: January 11, 2008
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.234 seconds