Hard Cases Make Bad Law? A Theoretical Investigation
The Journal of Legal Studies, 2022, vol. 51, issue 1, 133 - 175
I use formal models to probe the aphorism “Hard cases make bad law.” The analysis illuminates important features of the common-law process, especially the influence of case characteristics on lawmaking and the role of strategic litigators. When a case raises concerns that are not reflected in doctrine, the court might distort the law to avoid a hardship. Distortion is more likely when the case is important or the facts are close to the border of legality. Litigators may exploit courts’ attention to extradoctrinal concerns by strategically selecting cases for litigation. Surprisingly though, a strategic litigator improves lawmaking relative to random case selection—even when her preferences are far from the ideal rule—if her influence over case selection is modest. The effect is more nuanced when the strategic litigator has greater selection power. Finally, the analysis incorporates a judicial hierarchy with asymmetric information and fact-finding discretion.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/718207
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in The Journal of Legal Studies from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().