Tort law and probabilistic litigation: How to apply multipliers to address the problem of negative value suits

International Review of Law and Economics

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 236-243

  De Mot, Jef ^a   Depoorter, Ben ^b  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Litigation; Procedure; Tort law

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956450413     PISSN: 01448188     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2010.04.003     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Barnes D. The litigation crisis: Competitiveness and other measures of quality of life. Denver University Law Review 1993, 71:71.
2. Becker G.S. Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy 1968, 76:169-183.
3. Burbank S.B. Review of the costs of complexity complex litigation: Cases and materials on advanced civil procedure (Richard L. Marcus and Edward F. Sherman). Michigan Law Review 1987, 85:1463.
4. Farmer A., Pecorino P. Legal expenditure as a rent seeking game. Public Choice 1999, 100:271-288.
5. Galanter M. Reading the landscape of disputes: What we know and don't know (and think we know) about our allegedly contentious and litigious society. UCLA Law Review 1983, 31:4.
6. Hamdani A., Klement A. The class defense. California Law Review 2005, 93:685.
7. Hensler D.R., Marquis M.S., Abrahamse A., Berry S.H., Ebener P.A., Lewis E., et al. Compensation for accidental injuries in the United States 2005, RAND Corporation, R-3999-HHS/ICJ, Santa Monica, CA.
8. Hersch J., Viscusi W.K. Tort liability litigation costs for commercial claims. American Law & Economics Review 2007, 9:330.
9. Hirshleifer J., Osborne E. Truth, effort and the legal battle. Public Choice 2001, 108:169-195.
10. Hylton K. Litigation costs and the economic theory of tort law. University of Miami Law Review 1991, 46:111.
11. Hylton K. Welfare implications of costly litigation under strict liability. American Law & Economics Review 2002, 4:18.
12. Hylton K., Miceli T. Should tort damages be multiplied?. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 2005, 21:388-416.
13. Kakalik J.S., Ebener P.A., Felstiner W.L.F., Haggstrom G.W., Shanley M.G. Variation in Asbestos Litigation Compensation and Expenses, R-3132 1984, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
14. Kakalik J., Hensler D., McCaffrey D., Oshiro M., Pace N., Vaiana M. Discovery management: Further analysis of the civil justice reform act evaluation data. Boston College Law Review 1998, 39:613-648.
15. Kaplow L. Shifting plaintiff's fees versus increasing damage awards. RAND Journal of Economics 1993, 625-630.
16. Lahav A. Bellwether trials. The George Washington Law Review 2008, 76:576.
17. Landes W.M. An empirical analysis of intellectual property litigation: Some preliminary results. Houston Law Review 2004, 41:749.
18. Miller J.D. Using lotteries to expand the range of litigation settlements. Journal of Legal Studies 1997, 26:69.
19. Osborne E. Who should be worried about asymmetric information in litigation?. International Review of Law and Economics 1999, 19(3):399-409.
20. Rabin M., Thaler R.H. Anomalies risk aversion. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2001, 15-219.
21. Rosenberg D., Shavell S. A simple proposal to halve litigation costs. Virginia Law Review 2005, 91:1721.
22. Samaha A. Randomization in adjudication. William and Mary Law Review 2009, 51:1-86.
23. Shavell S. The social versus the private incentive to bring suit in a costly legal system. Journal of Legal Studies 1982, 11:333.
24. Siegelman P., Waldfogel J. Toward a taxonomy of disputes: New evidence through the prism of the Priest/Klein model. Journal of Legal Studies 1999, 101.
25. Simensky M., Osterberg E.C. The insurance and management of intellectual property risks. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 1991, 17:321.
26. Waldfogel J. Reconciling asymmetric information and divergent expectations theories of litigation. Journal of Law & Economics 1998, 41(2):451-476.