scholarly journals Plaintiphobia in State Courts? An Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore Eisenberg ◽  
Michael Heise
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Court

scholarly journals Plaintiphobia in State Courts? An Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal

2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore Eisenberg ◽  
Michael Heise
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Court

An Update to the Squire State Court of Last Resort Professionalization Index

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Peverill Squire ◽  
Jordan Butcher
Keyword(s):  
Relative Stability ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Court ◽  
Reform Movements ◽  
Current Version ◽  
The Future ◽  
Relative Standing

Abstract The current version of the Squire state court of last resort professionalization index is regularly used in studies of state courts. We have updated the index for 2019, producing a second and more recent index. Given the relative stability between this index and its predecessor, it is unlikely that many findings will change. During the 15 years that lapsed between the first index and the more recent one, little changed in most states, while reforms in a few places substantially shifted the relative standing of their court of last resort. It seems unlikely that the nation will experience any sweeping reform movements impacting state courts of last resort across the board. The more likely scenario is the sort of idiosyncratic changes impacting a few courts that were witnessed over the last decade and a half. Thus, looking to the future, it may be prudent to update the index every 5–10 years to capture any notable alterations.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jan Zglinski
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Action ◽  
European Court ◽  
National Autonomy ◽  
Eu Free Movement Law

This introductory chapter sets out the themes of the book. Doctrines of judicial deference have begun to appear with growing regularity in the European Court of Justice’s free movement case law, especially in relation to Member State action. Their application has been controversial, which is unsurprising in light of the constitutional issues which deference raises: should judges intervene in the work of the legislators? How far can the EU restrict national autonomy? And what is the division of power between European and Member State courts? The chapter sketches the approach taken in the book and explains the empirical study on which the analysis is based. The idea of the ‘passive virtues’ is introduced and linked to the developments in EU free movement law.

An Experimental Investigation of How Judicial Elections Affect Public Faith in the Judicial System

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (01) ◽  
pp. 37-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Nownes ◽  
Colin Glennon
Keyword(s):  
Selection Method ◽  
Public Perceptions ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Court ◽  
Selection Methods ◽  
Institutional Legitimacy ◽  
Judicial Elections ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Impact

Judicial scholars have often speculated about the impact of elections on the administration of justice in the state courts. Yet relatively little research has concerned itself with public perceptions of state court selection methods. Of particular interest is the concept of legitimacy. Do elections negatively affect public perceptions of judicial legitimacy? Bonneau and Hall (2009) and Gibson (2012) answer this question with an emphatic “No.” Judicial elections, these studies show, are not uniquely troublesome for perceptions of institutional legitimacy. This article aims to extend the findings of Bonneau and Hall and Gibson via a laboratory experiment on the effects of elections on public perceptions of judicial legitimacy. In the end, we find that because elections preempt the use of the other main selection method—appointment—they actually enhance perceptions of judicial legitimacy rather than diminish them.

Gender Equality and Sentencing Outcomes: An Examination of State Courts

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 673-695
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S. Nowacki
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Gender Equality ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Court ◽  
Multilevel Logistic Regression ◽  
County Level ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Court Processing ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Sentencing Outcomes

The current study examined whether measures of structural gender equality conditioned the effects of defendant gender on incarceration decisions. Using data from the State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS) database, multilevel logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between both case- and county-level variables on incarceration decisions on a sample of defendants sentenced in state courts. Results indicated that women were less likely to be sentenced to prison than men, but there was no gender difference for jail and noncustodial sentences; however, the structural gender equality measures exerted only slight influences over sentencing outcomes.

scholarly journals State Criminal Appeals Revealed

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Heise ◽  
Nancy J. King ◽  
Nicole A. Heise
Keyword(s):  
State Courts ◽  
State Court ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Justice Statistics ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Crime Types ◽  
Better Than

70 Vanderbilt Law Review 1939 (2017)Every state provides appellate review of criminal judgments, yet little research examines which factors correlate with favorable outcomes for defendants who seek appellate relief. To address this scholarly gap, this paper exploits the Survey of Criminal Appeals in State Courts (2010) dataset, recently released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for State Courts (hereinafter, “NCSC Study”). The NCSC Study is the first and only publicly available national dataset on state criminal appeals and includes unprecedented information from every state court in the nation with jurisdiction to review criminal judgments. We focus on two subpools of state criminal appeals: a defendant’s first appeal of right, and defense appeals to courts of last resort with the discretion to grant or deny review. Error correction, of course, is paramount in the first context, for typically an appeal of right is a defendant’s only chance at review. By contrast, courts of last resort with discretionary jurisdiction emphasize law development, selecting cases to clarify or alter legal rules, resolve conflicts, and remedy the most egregious mistakes. Our findings imply that defense appellate success rates may have declined in recent decades. In appeals of right, defendants who challenge a sentence enjoy a greater likelihood of success, as do those who have legal representation, file a reply brief or secure oral argument, and appellants from Florida. In high courts of last resort, appeals from sex offenses, raising certain trial issues, and appellants represented by publicly funded attorneys appear to fare better than others. Also notable is the absence of a relationship between defense success and factors including most crime types and claims raised, the court’s workload, and, for all but one model, whether the appellate judges were selected by election.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document