6 edition of special and a general multivariate theory of judicial decisions found in the catalog.
special and a general multivariate theory of judicial decisions
Bibliography: p. 38-42.
|Series||Sage professional papers in American politics ; ser. no. 04-033|
|LC Classifications||K2146 .K67|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||42 p. :|
|Number of Pages||42|
|LC Control Number||76046211|
Since the s, there has been an explosion of empirical and theoretical work dedicated to advancing strategic accounts of law and legal institutions. Reviewing this extensive literature could be accomplished in multiple ways. We chose an approach that underscores a major contribution of strategic accounts: that they have forced scholars to think about the interdependent—i.e., strategic Cited by: "The book is truly interdisciplinary, with many chapters covering two or three disciplines (law, psychology, and political science). Much of the work shows a solid understanding and appreciation for research in other disciplines This would be a welcome text to any undergraduate class addressing judicial politics, political psychology, decision making, or one that specifically focuses on the Format: Hardcover.
CULTURAL BIAS IN JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING. M. ASUA. S. AGIV * Abstract: This Essay describes the phenomenon of cultural bias in judicial dec i-sion making, and examines the use of testimonies and opinions of cultural ex-perts as a way to diminish this bias. The Essay compares the legal regimes of the United States and Israel. The first section of the book takes as its starting point the fact that judges make many of the same judgments and decisions that ordinary people make and considers how our knowledge about judgment and decision-making in general applies to the case of legal : David E. Klein.
This book compares how and why the European Court of Justice, the French Cour de cassation, and the United States Supreme Court offer different approaches for generating judicial accountability Author: Tilen Štajnpihler Božič. 1. Introduction: The Problem of Judicial Review (February 6) The practice of judicial review has become an important problem for democratic and liberal theory and for descriptive political science in the twentieth century. But of course it began as the assertion by a judicial body File Size: KB.
Les accessoires du costume et mobilier
Glossary of terms relating to iron and steel
Missouri water atlas
The Case Against Standardized Tests
Psychiatry in the general hospital
Directory of Canadian scientific and technical databases
Water Lubricated Bearings (Tribology in Practice)
merchants complaint against Spain
Knowledge, culture, and value
Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico and Turkey
Thirty-fourth Report of Session 2005-01 Report, Together With Formal Minutes, Oral And Written Evidence
essay on the meaning of Hamlet
Additional Physical Format: Online version: Kort, Fred. Special and a general multivariate theory of judicial decisions. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, © Book Review Naked Statistical Evidence models of judicial decisions.' No more than a handful of law schools e.g., F.
KORT, A SPECIAL AND A GENERAL MULTIVARIATE THEORY OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS (); G. SCHUBERT, HUMAN JURISPRUDENCE (). Finkelstein, The Application of Statistical Decision Theory to the Jury Discrimina-Cited by: Judicial decisions are moral decisions because they affect persons by bene-fiting or harming them.
A theory of judicial decision will therefore be a theory about moral decisions which gives special attention to the position and power of judges.
Our job is to locate the very general moral standardsAuthor: Thomas Morawetz. this Article, the demonstration of the place of such theory is not. Judicial theory is the body of principles that determines whether a decision is rightly decided.
As this Article will discuss later, this theory, at least in embryonic form, is essential to any analysis of the concept of. among judicial decisions on similar matters.1 2 Narrowing-in on the Judicial Hunch Once the Realist premise that judicial decisions are based greatly on a neurological flash -- the "judicial hunch" -- is accepted, the proper inquiry then becomes what elements create such a hunch.
If one is to accept the Realists' presumption that judgesAuthor: Timothy J. Capurso. Abstract. Judicial review has long been characterized by constitutional scholars as countermajoritarian and antidemocratic.
This Article employs insights from political science and game theory to argue that the opposite is true: judicial review supports popular sovereignty by mitigating the principal-agent problem that lies at the heart of democratic by: [[Judicial Review]]- the power of the Judiciary to review the actions of the other branches and to set them aside if in violation of the constitution Stare Decisis Each interpretation of law may have value as precedent which serves as authority for deciding similar cases (similar facts/legal principles) in the future.
SALIENCE THEORY OF DECISIONS / S9 present case with facts of similar cases, legal precedents, statutes, per-sonal experiences or expectations in similar situations, and so on. The fact that judicial decisions are made in context is partly by design; prece-dents are indeed supposed to anchor judicial decisions.
At the same time. Judicial review is a process under which executive or legislative actions are subject to review by the judiciary.A court with authority for judicial review may invalidate laws, acts and governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority: an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a constitution.
Each decision is based not on a statute but on previous judicial decisions. Circuit courts (US Court of Appeals): The second stage of federal courts, which review the trial record of cases decided in district court to ensure they were settled properly. Special courts within the federal system.
A more detailed snapshot of the federal system. Salience Theory of Judicial Decisions Pedro Bordalo, Nicola Gennaioli, Andrei Shleifer.
NBER Working Paper No. Issued in December NBER Program(s):Law and Economics We present a model of judicial decision making in which the judge overweights the salient facts of the case. The Judicial Decision: Toward a Theory of Legal Justification [Richard A.
Wasserstrom] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Judicial Decision: Toward a Theory of Legal JustificationAuthor: Richard A. Wasserstrom. Strategic Judicial Decision Making 5 boundary of the contract set.
Thus, under the strategic model, one would expect the Supreme Court to hand down only decisions that, in general, Congress and the President will not overturn. That is, justices maximize their utility subject to the constraints. The book also stands out from most books on judicial review in its focus on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its engagement with Canadian critics of judicial review, such as F.L.
Morton, Rainer Knopff, and Michael Mandel. Waluchow also references the U.S. Constitution and American scholars, but his concentration on Canada is a. The overall theory also helps to explain both judicial independence and public support for the courts in the face of decisions that may sometimes defy the wishes of a majority: because.
It goes beyond the traditional clash of judicial independence versus judicial accountability. Drawing on regulatory theory, Richard Devlin and Adam Dodek argue that judicial regulation is multi-faceted and requires us to consider the complex interplay of values, institutional norms, procedures, resources and.
JUDICIARY. JUDICIARY. In the early s Alexis de Tocqueville observed that sooner or later, every important American political issue ends up in the courts. The judiciary of the United States thus occupies a unique institutional role.
Americans are a litigious people, and lawyers are a higher percentage of the population in the United States than in any other nation.
judicial decision: 1 n (law) the determination by a court of competent jurisdiction on matters submitted to it Synonyms: judgement, judgment Examples: Bakke decision a ruling by the Supreme Court on affirmative action; the Court ruled in that medical schools are entitled to consider race as a factor in their admission policy Types: show.
Richard Posner on Theories of Judicial Behavior 1. 1 LEGAL THEORY JUDGE POSNER ON JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR Richard A. Posner (). ‘Nine Theories of Judicial Behavior,’ How Judges Think (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), pp. INTRODUCTION How do judges really think.
This is by no means an easy question to answer. Judicial misconduct: a cross-national comparison / by Mary L. Volcansek with Maria Elisabetta de Franciscis and Jacqueline Lucienne Lafon. K V64 Judicial selection: the cross-evolution of French and American practices / Mary Volcansek and Jacqueline Lucienne Lafon.
Yesterday, we began our analysis by addressing the competing theories of judicial behavior. Formalism, the oldest theory, teaches that judicial decision making can be explained and predicted based upon the facts, the applicable law and precedent and judicial deliberations – .This book is an updated and revised edition of Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation published in It discusses new developments that have taken place in the past 15 years in research of legal argumentation, legal justification and legal interpretation, as well as the implications of these new developments for the theory of legal argumentation.Legal argumentation is a distinctively multidisciplinary field of inquiry.
It draws its data, assumptions and methods from disciplines such as legal theory, legal philosophy, logic, argumentation theory, rhetoric, linguistics, literary theory, philosophy, sociology, and artificial intelligence.3/5(1).