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 Mauer 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
Date posted: February 29, 2008
Suggested CitationOrenstein, 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
|
| Feedback to SSRN (Beta) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
