Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=805062
 


 



What We Say We Do on Review, What We Actually Do on Review, Why they are so Dissimilar, and How We Manage Not to Notice


Aviva Orenstein


Indiana University Maurer School of Law


Law, Probability and Risk, Vol. 2, pp. 269-274, 2003

Abstract:     
Agreeing with Mathieson and Gross' observations in "Review for Error", this comment explores the avowed focus on process in appellate review and questions the accuracy of the review-for procedural-errors model. After proposing addtional explanations for the disjuncture between the theory of appellate review and the practical influence of substantive concerns, the comment suggests further avenues of research, both empirical and psychological.

Keywords: appellate review, procedural error, neutral principles, review, appeal, error, trial, finality, judges, advocacy, fiction.

Accepted Paper Series


Not Available For Download

Date posted: February 29, 2008  

Suggested Citation

Orenstein, Aviva, What We Say We Do on Review, What We Actually Do on Review, Why they are so Dissimilar, and How We Manage Not to Notice. Law, Probability and Risk, Vol. 2, pp. 269-274, 2003. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=805062

Contact Information

Aviva Orenstein (Contact Author)
Indiana University Maurer School of Law ( email )
211 S. Indiana Avenue
Bloomington, IN 47405
United States
812-855-8736 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 760

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.281 seconds