Discretionary review and undesired cases

Shay Lavie ()
Additional contact information
Shay Lavie: Tel Aviv University

European Journal of Law and Economics, 2017, vol. 44, issue 2, No 5, 265-285

Abstract: Abstract Courts sometimes face cases that may result in adverse post-judgment official or public reactions. Such real-world repercussions—e.g., open defiance by public officials—can be more costly for the court than the benefit of hearing and deciding the case. In these situations the court may be better off not taking the case from the outset. This paper examines how courts deal with such cases when they can avoid adjudication—discretionary dockets. Using a stylized screening model, the paper examines the implications of such discretion. In particular, it shows that some undesired real-world outcomes are inevitable; and that broad control over their dockets should lead judges to take fewer cases in which the government is involved. Further, the paper discusses this logic from a comparative design perspective. The two prevalent models of judicial review, the American and the European, seem to take opposing stances on discretionary review; however, both narrow supreme courts’ control over their dockets, either by directly limiting their discretionary jurisdiction or by decentralizing judicial review.

Keywords: Discretionary review; Screening of cases; Supreme and constitutional courts (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: K40 K41 K49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10657-015-9522-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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:kap:ejlwec:v:44:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10657-015-9522-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/journal/10657

DOI: 10.1007/s10657-015-9522-z

Access Statistics for this article

European Journal of Law and Economics is currently edited by Jürgen Georg Backhaus, Giovanni B. Ramello and Alain Marciano

More articles in European Journal of Law and Economics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().