Improving the quality of the judiciary is a noble cause. I welcome the participation of social scientists in the endeavor. But it is an open question whether social science can meaningfully contribute. Left to their own devices, social scientists are likely to produce work of dubious value. Perhaps judges can… Read More »
In this Essay, I raise a metatheoretical question concerning the relationship between what seem to be two distinct categories of projects that might be lumped together under the rubric of empirical study of judicial performance. One kind of empirical project aims broadly at developing a social-scientific theory of judging, or… Read More »
Much has been written about the process by which judges reach decisions in cases governed by the common law, but very little has been done to test this process empirically. Most empirical efforts have attempted to determine whether and to what extent judges’ political views influence their legal decisions. My… Read More »
The primary goal of the Duke Law Journal’s Symposium on Evaluating Judging, Judges, and Judicial Institutions was to bring together judges and academics researching judges. Conversations between these groups can be constructive on both sides. Judges may benefit from learning about studies that show the influences on judicial performance or… Read More »
The presence of an estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, of which an estimated 7.2 million are working, has become a flashpoint in the emerging national debate about immigration. With undocumented immigrants participating in the workforce in such numbers, disputes between employers and employees regarding the employment… Read More »
I recently read a paper in which a prominent legal scholar argued that empirical evidence conclusively demonstrates that decisionmaking in the federal courts of appeals is highly politicized. No body of empirical evidence supports this claim.
When federal appellate judges decide a case, we focus on the relevant legal materials,… Read More »
This is a response to James McDonald’s student Note, Milberg’s Monopoly: Restoring Honesty and Competition to the Plaintiffs’ Bar in Volume 58 of the Duke Law Journal. Click here for the Note.
Although the Duke Law Journal’s article, Milberg’s Monopoly: Restoring Honesty and Competition to the Plaintiffs’ Bar, reflects a lot of effort… Read More »
Cost-benefit “proportionality” limits on discovery have long been prescribed by a wide range of commentators. The judiciary codified a proportionality requirement in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C) and later in e-discovery rules based on proportionality principles, such as the Rule 26(b)(2)(B) proviso that only upon “good cause” can there… Read More »
Group-ride bicyclists start their mornings with a “route rap.” Before an extended ride begins, participants gather round, standing next to their bikes, and listen to their leader describe the itinerary ahead. They might each hold a copy of a cue sheet that recites turns, landmarks, risks, and stopping points. The… Read More »
In a fairly short period of time, arbitration agreements have migrated beyond their traditional domains, such as commercial transactions between sophisticated business entities, and have come to pervade the contemporary economy. A typical consumer might have agreed, though not necessarily consciously, to arbitrate disputes with his or her credit card… Read More »