Empirical legal scholarship in law reviews

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volumn 6, Issue , 2010, Pages 581-599

  Diamond, Shari Seidman ^a,b   Mueller, Pam ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

^b AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Citation; Content analysis; Measurement

Indexed keywords

EID: 78049426560     PISSN: 15503585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102209-152848     Document Type: Review

References (109)

1. Allen J. 2008. A theory of adjudication: Law as magic. Suffolk Univ. Law Rev. 41:773-831
2. Antitrust Law J. 2007. Symposium: the application of empirical economics to antitrust. Antitrust Law J. 74:265-466
3. Arlen J, ed. 2010. Experimental & Empirical Studies eJournal. Rochester, NY: Soc. Sci. Electronic Publ., Inc. http://www.ssrn.com/update/lsn/ lsn-empirical-law.html
4. Bauer J. 2008. Buying witness silence: Evidence-suppressing settlements and lawyers' ethics. Or. Law Rev. 87:481-579
5. Beaton B. 2008. Walking the federalist tightrope: A national policy of state experimentation for health information technology. Columbia Law Rev. 108:1670-1717
6. Beebe B. 2008. An empirical study of U.S. copyright fair use opinions, 1978-2005. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 156:549-624
7. Bergin TF. 1968. The law teacher: A man divided against himself. Va. Law Rev. 54:637-657
8. Bok DC. 1983. A flawed system of law practice and training. J. Leg. Educ. 11:570-585
9. Calabresi G. 1961. Some thoughts on risk distribution and the law of torts. Yale Law J. 70:499-553
10. Carlin JE. 1962. Lawyers on Their Own: A Study of Individual Practitioners in Chicago. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press. 234 pp.
11. Cassell PG, Fowles R. 1998. Handcuffing the cops? A thirty-year perspective on Miranda's harmful effects on law enforcement. Stanford Law Rev. 50:1055-1145
12. Cheng EK. 2008. The myth of the generalist judge. Stanford Law Rev. 61:519-572
13. Chicago J. Int. Law. 2004. Symposium: the empirical and theoretical underpinnings of the law merchant. Chicago J. Int. Law 5:1-190
14. Cimini CN. 2008. Ask, don't tell: Ethical issues surrounding undocumented workers' status in employment litigation. Stanford Law Rev. 61:355-415
15. Coase RH. 1960. The problem of social cost. J. Law Econ. 3:1-44
16. Colbert DL, Paternoster R, Bushway S. 2002. Do attorneys really matter? The empirical and legal case for the right of counsel at bail. Cardozo Law Rev. 23:1719-1793
17. Const. Comment. 2007. Symposium: the Rehnquist Court in empirical and statistical retrospective. Const. Comment. 24:3-284
18. Dammann J, Hansmann H. 2008. Globalizing commercial litigation. Cornell Law Rev. 94:1-80
19. Diamond SS. 2002. Empirical marine life in legal waters: Clams, dolphins, and plankton. Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2002:803-818
20. Diamond SS, Vidmar N, Rose MR, Ellis L, Murphy B. 2003. Jury discussions during civil trials: Studying an Arizona innovation. Ariz. Law Rev. 45:1-81
21. Doherty J. 2010. ELS Bibliography. http://www.law.ucla.edu/home/index. asp?page=2691
22. Donohue JJ. 1998. Does Miranda diminish police effectiveness? Stanford Law Rev. 50:1147-1178
23. Donohue JJ, Ho DE. 2007. The impact of damage caps on malpractice claims: Randomization inference with difference-in-differences. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 4:69-102
24. Donohue JJ, Wolfers J. 2005. Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate. Stanford Law Rev. 58:791-845
25. Drizin SA, Leo RA. 2004. The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. N. C. Law Rev. 82:891-1007
26. Dunn EW, Spellman BA. 2003. Forgetting by remembering: Stereotype inhibition through rehearsal of alternative aspects of identity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39:420-433
27. Edwards HT. 1992. The growing disjunction between legal education and the legal profession. Mich. Law Rev. 91:34-78
28. Eisenberg T, Miller GP. 2006. The flight from arbitration: An empirical study of ex ante arbitration clauses in publicly-held companies' contracts. Cornell Legal Studies Res. Pap. Ser. No.06-023, NYU, Law Econ. Res. Pap. Ser. No. 06-35. http://ssrn.com/abstract=927423
29. Ellickson RC. 2000. Trends in legal scholarship: A statistical study. J. Leg. Stud. 29:517-543
30. Epstein L. 2009. Shedding (empirical) light on judicial selection. Mo. Law Rev. 74:563-571
31. Epstein L, King G. 2002. The rules of inference. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 69:1-133
32. Epstein L, Knight J. 2004. Building the bridge from both sides of the river: Law and society and rational choice. Law Soc. Rev. 38:207-212
33. Epstein L, Segal JA. 2001. The norm of consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 45:362-377
34. Fagan J, Meares T. 2008. Punishment, deterrence, and social control: The paradox of punishment in minority communities. Ohio State J. Crim. Law 6:173-229
35. Fagan J, Piquero A. 2007. Rational choice and developmental influences on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 4:715-748
36. Fla. State Univ. Law Rev. 2005. Symposium: empirical measures of judicial performance. Fla. State Univ. Law Rev. 32:1001-442
37. Frost A. 2008. Overvaluing uniformity. Va. Law Rev. 94:1567-1639
38. Ga. State Univ. Law Rev. 1998. Carter Center symposium on the death penalty, July 24, 1997. Ga. State Univ. Law Rev. 14:329-445
39. Garvey SP. 1998. Aggravation and mitigation in capital cases: What do jurors think? Columbia Law Rev. 98:1538-1576
40. George TE. 2006. An empirical study of empirical legal scholarship: The top law schools. Indiana Law J. 81:141-160
41. Georget. J. Leg. Ethics. 2009. Symposium: empirical research on the legal profession: insight from theory and practice. Georget. J. Leg. Ethics 22:1249-483
42. Hathaway OA. 2008. Treaties' end: The past, present, and future of international lawmaking in the United States. Yale Law J. 117:1236-1362
43. Hazard GC. 1998. The county courthouse no longer looms over the community. SMU Law Rev. 51:1559-1568
44. Heise M. 1999. The importance of being empirical. Pepperdine Law Rev. 26:807-834
45. Heise M. 2002. The past, present, and future of empirical legal scholarship: Judicial decision making and the new empiricism. Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2002:819-850
46. Hellman AD. 1997. The shrunken docket of the Rehnquist Court. Supreme Court Rev. 1996:403-38 Hines NW. 2005. Empirical scholarship: What should we study and how should we study it? AALS Newsl. 2005:1-10
47. HoffmanM,Topulos K. 2008. Tyranny of the available: under-represented topics, approaches, and viewpoints. Syracuse J. Int. Law Commer. 35:175-200
48. Holmes OW. 1897. The path of the law. Harvard Law Rev. 10:457-78
49. J. Leg. Educ. 2003. Symposium: On empirical research. J. Leg. Educ. 53:311-339
50. Kahan DM. 2008. Two conceptions of emotion in risk regulation. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 156:741-766
51. Kalven H, Zeisel H. 1966 (1987). The American Jury. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 560 pp.
52. Kennedy D. 1996. Strategizing strategic behavior in legal interpretation. Utah Law Rev. 1996:785-825
53. Kingsley BS. 2008. Making it easy to be green: using impact fees to encourage green building. N. Y. Univ. Law Rev. 83:532-567
54. Korobkin R. 1998. The status quo bias and contract default rules. Cornell Law Rev. 83:608-677
55. Korobkin R. 2002. Empirical scholarship in contract law: Possibilities and pitfalls. Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2002:1033-1063
56. Kort F. 1957. Predicting Supreme Court cases mathematically: A quantitative analysis of the 'right to counsel' cases. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 51:1-12
57. Kritzer H. 2009. Empirical legal studies before 1940: A bibliographic essay. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 6:925-968
58. Landes WM, Posner RA. 1996. Heavily cited articles in law. Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 71:825-838
59. Lasser MD. 1998. "Lit. theory" put to the test: A comparative literary analysis of American judicial tests and French judicial discourse. Harvard Law Rev. 111:689-770
60. Lindquist SA, Yalof DA. 2001. Congressional responses to federal circuit court decisions. Judicature 85:61-68 LockhartW. 1970. Social research and the law: Foreword. J. Leg. Educ. 23:1
61. Meares TL, Kahan DM. 1998. Law and (norms of ) order in the inner city. Law Soc. Rev. 32:805-838
62. Merritt DJ, Reskin BF. 1997. Sex, race, and credentials: The truth about affirmative action in law faculty hiring. Columbia Law Rev. 97:199-311
63. Mertz E. 2007a. Inside the law school classroom: Toward a new legal realist pedagogy. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 60:483-513
64. Mertz E. 2007b. Semiotic anthropology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 16:337-353
65. Mich. Law Rev. 2000. Symposium: empirical research in commercial transactions. Mich. Law Rev. 98:2421-2779
66. Michelman FI. 1967. Property, utility, and fairness: Comments on the ethical foundations of 'just compensation' law. Harvard Law Rev. 80:1165-1258
67. Monahan J, Swanson J. 2009. Lawyers at mid-career: A 20-year longitudinal study of job and life satisfaction. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 6:451-483
68. Monahan J,Walker L. 2010. Twenty-five years of Social Science in Law. Law Hum. Behav. In press
69. Monahan J, Walker L, Mitchell G. 2008. Contextual evidence of gender discrimination: The ascendance of "social frameworks." Va. Law Rev. 94:1715-1749
70. Muir WK. 1970. The impact of Supreme Court decisions on moral attitudes. J. Leg. Educ. 23:89-106
71. Nadler J, Diamond SS. 2008. Eminent domain and the psychology of property rights: Proposed use, subjective attachment, and taker identity. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 5:713-749
72. Nard CA. 1995. Empirical legal scholarship: Reestablishing a dialogue between the academy and profession. Wake For. Law Rev. 1995:347-367
73. Nimmer D. 1998. An odyssey through copyright's vicarious defenses. N. Y. Univ. Law Rev. 73:162-192
74. N. C. Law Rev. 2009. Symposium: frontiers in empirical patent law scholarship. N. C. Law Rev. 87:1321-698
75. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 2003. Symposium: empirical legal realism: a new social scientific assessment of law and human behavior. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 97:1075-392
76. Ohlin LE. 1970. Partnership with the social sciences. J. Leg. Educ. 23:204-208
77. Oliar D, Sprigman C. 2008. There's no free laugh (anymore): The emergence of intellectual property norms and the transformation of stand-up comedy. Va. Law Rev. 94:1787-1867
78. Perry HW Jr. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. 326 pp.
79. Posner RA. 1987. The decline of law as an autonomous discipline: 1962-1987. Harvard Law Rev. 100:761-780
80. Rachlinski JJ. 1998. A positive psychological theory of judging in hindsight. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 65:571-625
81. Rhode DL. 2008. Public interest law: The movement at midlife. Stanford Law Rev. 60:2027-2078
82. Robinson PH, Spellman BA. 2005. Sentencing decisions: Matching the decisionmaker to the decision nature. Columbia Law Rev. 105:1124-1161
83. Rosenbaum J, DeLuca S. 2008. What kinds of neighborhoods change lives? The Chicago Gautreaux housing program and recent mobility programs. Indiana Law Rev. 41:653-661
84. Saks MJ, Faigman DL. 2005. Expert evidence after Daubert. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 1:105-130
85. Saks MJ, Koehler JJ. 2008. The individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 61:199-218
86. Sarat A. 2007. Fathers in law: violence and reason in 12 Angry Men. Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 82:863-886
87. Sarat A. 2008. Memorializing miscarriages of justice: Clemency petitions in the killing state. Law Soc. Rev. 42:183-224
88. Schneider C, Teitelbaum L. 2006. Life's golden tree: Empirical scholarship and American law. Utah Law Rev. 2006:53-106
89. Schuck PH. 1989. Why don't law professors do more empirical research? J. Leg. Educ. 39:323-336
90. Segal JA, Westerland C. 2001. The Supreme Court, Congress, and judicial review. N. C. Law Rev. 83:1323-1352
91. Silbey SS. 2001. Minding the law: How the courts engage in storytelling, and how their stories change the way we understand the law-and ourselves. Am. J. Sociol. 107:229-231
92. Silbey SS. 2007. Talk of law: Contested and conventional legality. DePaul Law Rev. 56:639-659
93. Spaeth HJ, Segal JA. 2000. The U.S. Supreme Court judicial data base: Providing new insights into the Court. Judicature 83:228-235
94. Stevens RB. 1983. Law School: Legal Education in America from the 1850s to the 1980s. Chapel Hill: Univ. N. C. Press. 390 pp.
95. Stras DR. 2007. The Supreme Court's gatekeepers: The role of law clerks in the certiorari process. Tex. Law Rev. 85:947-997
96. Sullivan KM. 2002. Foreword: Interdisciplinarity. Mich. Law Rev. 100:1217-1226
97. Tomlins C. 2000. Framing the field of law's disciplinary encounters: A historical narrative. Law Soc. Rev. 34:911-972
98. Tulane Law Rev. 2006. AALS section on contracts symposium: empirical scholarship: What should we study and how should we study it? Tulane Law Rev. 80:1009-238
99. Tyler TR. 2007. Do Americans accept the rule of law? DePaul Law Rev. 56:661-694
100. Tyler TR, Callahan P, Frost J. 2007. Armed, and dangerous (?): Motivating rule adherence among agents of social control. Law Soc. Rev. 41:457-492
101. Ulen TS. 2009. The impending train wreck in legal education: How we might teach law as the scientific study of social governance. Univ. St. Thomas Law J. 6:302-336
102. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 2002. Symposium: exchange: empirical research and the goals of legal scholarship. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 69:1-209
103. Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2002. Symposium: empirical and experimental methods in law. Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2002(4):791-1176
104. Univ. Mich. J. Law Reform. 2008. Symposium: empirical studies of mandatory arbitration. Univ. Mich. J. Law Reform 41:777-896
105. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 2006. Symposium: empirical legal scholarship. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 59:1811-2094
106. Wake For. Univ. Law Rev. 2002. Symposium on empirical approaches to proving the standard of care inmedical malpractice cases. Wake For. Univ. Law Rev. 37:663-955
107. Warren E. 2002. The market for data: The changing role of social sciences in shaping the law. Wis. Law Rev. 2002:1-43
108. Wash. Univ. J. Law Policy. 2003. Symposium: empirical taxation. Wash. Univ. J. Law Policy 13:1-333
109. Zeisel H. 1970. Of social science researchmethods and competency for lawyers therein. J. Leg. Educ. 23:240-242