Decision Rules in a Judicial Hierarchy: Comment

Passion in Legal Argument and Judicial Decision Making: A Comment on Goldberg v. Kelly

Informative Precedent and Intrajudicial Communication

We develop an informational model of judicial decision-making in which deference to precedent is useful to policy-oriented appellate judges because it improves the accuracy with which they can communicate legal rules to trial judges. Our simple model yields new implications and hypotheses regarding conditions under which judges will maintain or break with precedent, the constraining effect that...

Summary. Sentencing law and sentencing decision making

The initial context of this research – judicial cooperation with regard to consistency in sentencing This dissertation is part of a research project in which the phenomenon of judicial cooperation in several areas of the law has been taken as a starting point. The concept of judicial cooperation describes informal structures and products thereof of judicial policymaking for the purpose of the s...

Ethics in the Legal System: A Fair Trial in Registered Quasi-Judicial Bodies

 Background: A fair and just trial, as one of the most fundamental moral demands in the legal system, can have positive consequences in the legal system. The effectiveness of the registration system in society is increasing and it is necessary to conduct appropriate surveys to meet their expectations, especially in terms of paying attention to the substantive rules of fair trial. The rules and ...

Learning in the Judicial Hierarchy

I argue the Supreme Court learns to craft legal rules by relying on the Courts of Appeals as laboratories of law, observing their decisions and reviewing those that best inform legal development. I develop a model that shows how the Supreme Court leverages multiple Courts of Appeals decisions to identify which will be most informative to review, and what decision to make upon review. Because an...