Stampede to Judgment: Persuasive Influence and Herding Behavior by Courts

Andrew Daughety and Jennifer Reinganum ()

American Law and Economics Review, 1999, vol. 1, issue 1-2, 158-89

Abstract: We model appeals courts as Bayesian decision makers with private information about a supreme court's interpretation of the law; each court also observes the previous decisions of other appeals courts in similar cases. Such "persuasive influence" can cause "herding" behavior by later appeals courts as decisions progressively rely more on previous decisions and less on a court's private information. We provide an example drawn from a recent United States Supreme Court decision finding unconstitutional a basic provision of a law previously found constitutional by six circuit courts. Herding on the wrong decision may remain uncorrected, since review of harmonious decisions is rare. Copyright 1999 by Oxford University Press.

Date: 1999
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (35)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

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:oup:amlawe:v:1:y:1999:i:1-2:p:158-89

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

American Law and Economics Review is currently edited by J.J. Prescott and Albert Choi

More articles in American Law and Economics Review from American Law and Economics Association Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().