Case Selection after the Trial: A Study of Post-Trial Settlement and Appeal
42 Pages Posted: 1 May 2009
Date Written: May 1, 2009
Abstract
This paper studies the decisions of litigants in civil disputes whether to settle or appeal a case after a trial. The paper argues that when litigants are unable to meet damage awards in full only cases where the defendant’s position is particularly strong will face appellate court review. In the absence of financial constraints defendants will be more inclined to take chances with cases where their position is weaker. The paper tests the importance of award size and financial constraints in driving settlement and appeals decisions using survey data about post-trial activity for a sample of verdicts in California and New York from 2001-2004. These results indicate that the case-selection model is highly relevant in determining which cases are ultimately resolved by an appellate court. Additionally, defendant financial resources are an important factor that strongly influences post-trial outcomes.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
How Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs Fare in Federal Court
-
By Michael Heise, Theodore Eisenberg, ...
-
Plaintiphobia in State Courts? An Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal
By Theodore Eisenberg and Michael Heise
-
Plaintiphobia in State Courts Redux? An Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal
By Theodore Eisenberg and Michael Heise
-
Plaintiphobia in the Appellate Courts: Civil Rights Really Do Differ from Negotiable Instruments?
-
The Rule of Law and the Litigation Process: the Paradox of Losing by Winning