Tracking inconsistent judicial behavior

Anthony Niblett

International Review of Law and Economics, 2013, vol. 34, issue C, 9-20

Abstract: This paper explores the phenomenon of inconsistent judicial decisions. We analyze inconsistency in 174 legal decisions from the California Court of Appeal that determine whether or not an arbitration provision in a contract is enforceable as written. We map the facts of cases and introduce a new methodology for measuring inconsistency, directly comparing each case with every precedent. Our results indicate that cases are inconsistent with about one-quarter of relevant precedents. Inconsistency is highly correlated with conflicting political ideology of the judges on the benches that hear the two cases. Inconsistency also correlates with the publication of cases and the non-publication of precedents.

Keywords: Judicial behavior; Inconsistency; Courts; Contracts; Arbitration provisions (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2013
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818812000622
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:34:y:2013:i:c:p:9-20

DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2012.10.003

Access Statistics for this article

International Review of Law and Economics is currently edited by C. Ott, A. W. Katz and H-B. Schäfer

More articles in International Review of Law and Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().