Trial and Appellate Judging in the Measure of Judicial Responsiveness

4 Pages Posted: 21 May 2013

Date Written: May 21, 2013

Abstract

In Triangulating Judicial Responsiveness: Automated Content Analysis, Judicial Opinions, and the Methodology of Legal Scholarship, Chad Oldfather, Joseph Bockhorst, and Brian Dimmer initiate a provocative dialogue about measuring judicial responsiveness by providing innovative tools for assessing how closely judicial opinions hew to the arguments and information provided by litigants.

This brief comment responds to the authors’ analysis by examining whether a more accurate characterization of their project is that they are quantifying appellate judicial responsiveness, and by suggesting that the authors might consider a broader definition of judicial responsiveness to account for litigation materials beyond appellate briefs.

Keywords: civil procedure, appellate procedure, judges, empirical studies, litigation

Suggested Citation

Effron, Robin, Trial and Appellate Judging in the Measure of Judicial Responsiveness (May 21, 2013). Florida Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 1, 2013, Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 338, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267985

Robin Effron (Contact Author)

Brooklyn Law School ( email )

250 Joralemon Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
20
Abstract Views
498
PlumX Metrics