On the design of the appeals process: The optimal use of discretionary review versus direct appeal

Journal of Legal Studies

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 63-107

  Shavell, Steven ^a  

^a HARVARD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950264006     PISSN: 00472530     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/605094     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. 2008. 2007 Annual Report of the Director: Judicial Business of the United States Courts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
2. Baker, Thomas E. 1994a. Imagining the Alternative Futures of the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Georgia Law Review 28:913-976
3. -. 1994b. Rationing Justice on Appeal: The Problems of the U.S. Courts of Appeals. St. Paul, Minn.: West.
4. Cameron, Charles M., and Lewis Kornhauser. 2005. Decision Rules in a Judicial Hierarchy. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 161:264-292
5. -. 2006. Appeals Mechanisms, Litigant Selection, and the Structure of Judicial Hierarchies. Pp. 173-204 in Institutional Games and the U.S. Supreme Court, edited by Jon Bond, Roy Flemming, and James Rogers. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
6. Cameron, Charles, Jeffrey Segal, and Donald Songer. 2000. Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions. American Political Science Review 94(1):101-116
7. Carlton, Christopher F. 1997. The Grinding Wheel of Justice Needs Some Grease: Designing the Federal Courts of the Twenty-First Century. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 6:1-33.
8. Carrington, Paul D. 1987. The Function of the Civil Appeal: A Late-Century View. South Carolina Law Review 38:411-435
9. Cocoa Merchants' Association of America. 2008. By-Laws, Revised May 12, 2006. http://www.cocoamerchants.com/bylaws/CMAA-BY-LAWS.05.08.08.pdf.
10. Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals. 1998. Final Report. Washington, D.C.: The Commission.
11. Consejo General del Poder Judicial. 2008. La Justicia Dato a Dato-=Año 2007. Madrid.
12. Coriden, James A., Thomas J. Green, and Donald E. Heintschel, eds. 1985. The Code of Canon Law, a Text and Commentary. New York: Paulist Press.
13. Dalton, Harlon Leigh. 1985. Taking the Right to Appeal (More or Less) Seriously. Yale Law Journal 95:62-107.
14. Daughety, Andrew F., and Jennifer F. Reinganum. 2000. Appealing Judgments. RAND Journal of Economics 31:502-525
15. -. 2006. Speaking Up: A Model of Judicial Dissent and Discretionary Review. Supreme Court Economic Review 14:1-42.
16. Eisenberg, Theodore. 2004. Appeal Rates and Outcomes in Tried and Nontried Cases: Further Exploration of Anti-plaintiff Appellate Outcomes. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 1:659-688
17. Eisenberg, Theodore, and Michael Heise. 2009. Plaintiphobia in State Courts? An Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal. Journal of Legal Studies 38:121-155
18. Eisenberg, Theodore, and Geoffrey Miller. 2008. Reversal, Dissent, and Variability in State Supreme Courts: The Centrality of Jurisdictional Source. Boston University Law Review 89:1451-1504.
19. Federal Courts Study Committee. 1990. Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee. Washington, D.C. Reprinted in Connecticut Law Review 22: 733-942.
20. Flango, Carol R., and David B. Rottman. 1998. Appellate Court Procedures. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.
21. Greenhouse, Linda. 1984. Rehnquist Asks Limit to Automatic Appeals. New York Times, September 16, p. 27.
22. Gressman, Eugene, Kenneth S. Geller, Stephen M. Shapiro, Timothy S. Bishop, and Edward A. Hartnett. 2007. Supreme Court Practice: For Practice in the Supreme Court of the United States. 9th ed. Arlington, Va.: BNA Books.
23. Herzog, Peter E., and Delmar Karlen. 1982. Attacks on Judicial Decisions. Chapter 8 in Civil Procedure, edited by Mauro Cappelletti. Vol.16 of International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
24. Judicial Conference of the United States. 1995. Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts. Washington, D.C. http://www.uscourts.gov/lrp/CVRPGTOC.HTM.
25. Koch, Charles H., Jr., and David A. Koplow. 1990. The Fourth Bite of the Apple: A Study of the Operation and Utility of the Social Security Administration's Appeals Council. Florida State University Law Review 17:199-318.
26. Kornhauser, Lewis. 1995. Adjudication by a Resource-Constrained Team: Hierarchy and Precedent in a Judicial System. Southern California Law Review 68:1605-1629
27. LaFountain, Robert C., Richard Y. Schauffler, Shauna M. Strickland, William E. Raftery, and Chantal G. Bromage. 2007. Examining the Work of State Courts, 2006: A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project.Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.
28. Lax, Jeffrey E. 2003. Certiorari and Compliance in the Judicial Hierarchy: Discretion, Reputation, and the Rule of Four. Journal of Theoretical Politics 15(1):61-86.
29. Lay, Donald P. 1981. A Proposal for Discretionary Review in Federal Courts of Appeals. Southwestern Law Journal 34:1151-1158
30. Levy, Gilat. 2005. Careerist Judges and the Appeals Process. RAND Journal of Economics 36:275-297
31. Mashaw, Jerry L., Charles J. Goetz, Paul R. Verkuil, Milton M. Carrow, and Warren F. Schwartz. 1978. Social Security Hearings and Appeals: A Study of the Social Security Administration Hearing System. Lanham, Md.: Lexington.
32. Mertens, Jacob, Jr. 1994. The Law of Federal Income Taxation. Vol.13. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group.
33. Miller, Geoffrey P. 2008. Preliminary Judgments. Working Paper No. 08-29. New York University, Center for Law and Economics, New York.
34. Ministere de la Justice. 2007. Annuaire Statistique de La Justice. Paris: La Documentation Francaise.
35. Nagel, John C. 1994. Replacing the Crazy Quilt of Interlocutory Appeals Jurisprudence with Discretionary Review. Duke Law Journal 44:200-229
36. Parker, Robert M., and Ron Chapman, Jr. 1997. Accepting Reality: The Time for Adopting Discretionary Review in the Courts of Appeals Has Arrived. SMU Law Review 50:573-582
37. Platto, Charles, ed. 1992. Civil Appeal Procedures Worldwide. Intenational Bar Association Series. Boston: Graham & Trotman.
38. Posner, Richard A. 1996. The Federal Courts: Challenge and Reform.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
39. Raiffa, Howard. 1968. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices under Uncertainty. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Press.
40. Rao, C. Radhakrishna. 1965. Linear Statistical Inference and Its Applications. New York: Wiley.
41. Reinhardt, Stephen. 1995. Surveys without Solutions: Another Study of the United States Courts of Appeals. Texas Law Review 73:1505-1521
42. Scott, William G. 1965. The Management of Conflict. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.
43. Shapiro, Martin. 1981. Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44. Shavell, Steven. 1995. The Appeals Process as a Means of Error Correction. Journal of Legal Studies 24:379-426.
45. -. 2006. The Appeals Process and Adjudicator Incentives. Journal of Legal Studies 35:1-29.
46. -. 2009. On the Design of the Appeals Process: The Optimal Use of Discretionary Review versus Direct Appeal. Discussion Paper No. 625. Harvard Law School, John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business, Cambridge, Mass.
47. Spitzer, Matthew, and Eric Talley. 2000. Judicial Auditing. Journal of Legal Studies 24:649-684
48. Statistisches Bundesamt. 2008a. Fachserie 10, Reihe 2.1-Rechtspflege: Zivilgerichte. Wiesbaden.
49. -. 2008b. Fachserie 10, Reihe 2.2-Rechtspflege: Familiengerichte. Wiesbaden.
50. Strickland, Shauna M., Chantal G. Bromage, and William E. Raftery. 2007. State Court Caseload Statistics, 2006. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts. http://www.ncsonline.org/D-Research/csp/2006-files/ IntroductiontoSCCS06.pdf.
51. Vitiello, Michael. 1988. The Appellate Lawyer's Role in the Caseload Crisis. Mississippi Law Journal 58:437-480