Mandatory Arbitration and Civil Litigation: An Empirical Study of Medical Malpractice Litigation in the West

This article looks at the effect that pretrial, statutorilyrequired screening panels in Nevada have had on medical malpracticelitigation. I use two unique data sets on litigation in Nevadaand neighboring states from 1983–88, during which theNevada legislature enacted screening panels. Applying time-seriesand difference-in-difference analyses, I show that observeddecreases in Nevada with respect to damage awards, attorney'sfees, and duration in litigation reflected a broader seculartrend. The panels did, however, reduce the relative probabilityof claims requiring resolution by the Nevada courts.     

Damage Caps and Civil Litigation: An Empirical Study of Medical Malpractice Litigation in the South

This article looks at the effect that damage caps have on plaintiffs'recovery in medical malpractice litigation, using a unique dataset of litigation in the South, from 1987 to 1999. During thistime, Alabama underwent both the implementation and nullificationof damage-cap laws; neighboring states did not undergo any significantlegal changes. The product of a difference-in-difference approach,the results reveal that the average relative recovery by Alabamaplaintiffs decreased by roughly $20,000 after the Alabama legislatureenacted damage caps and increased by roughly double that amountafter the Alabama Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional.     

检察机关提起行政公益诉讼的实证考察

检察机关独享行政公益诉讼的起诉资格,体现了我国公益诉讼国家化的政策考虑与制度安排。诉前程序的设置,发挥了检察机关督促执法、过滤案件、节约司法资源的作用,在案件调查证据收集过程中拥有法定方式,这些是国家化安排的独特优势。但这样的安排在试点期间也暴露了不少问题:检察机关在案件的发现上高度依赖单一的案件线索获取方式;在选择案件上存在着趋易避难、避重就轻的倾向;在地方政治生态中的微妙处境,制约了其在公益诉讼中的作为。因此建议围绕国家化行政公益诉讼的优势,激活检察系统内部责任机制、精细化相应的制度构建;拓展个人组织的诉讼资格,实行国家化与社会化的并轨。     

法院诉讼行为要论

民事诉讼行为是民事诉讼法学的一个基本理论范畴.按照德国法学家绍尔(Sauer)的说法,“诉讼行为之概念乃为诉讼法之中心”.此说虽有夸张之处,但从大陆法系诸国法学的现状来看,诉讼行为理论实为构筑民事诉讼法学体系的理论基石之一……     

The Institutional Sources of State Success in Federalism Litigation before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's recent federalism decisions are the clearest example of the states' improving legal fortunes in litigation against the federal government. Reducing the dramatic shift in the Court's federalism jurisprudence to the attitudinal voting of individual justices ignores the influence on the Court's decision making from broader institutional developments in American politics and domestic policy. These developments include: (1) the diminishing effectiveness of the states' lobbying power in the federal policymaking arena; (2) the increasing effectiveness of litigation by states' attorneys general in the federal judicial arena; and (3) the convergence of these developments resulting in a pro-state Supreme Court agenda.     

Race-Based Peremptory Challenges: An Empirical Analysis of Litigation from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2002–2006

This paper examines race-based peremptory challenges. Such challenges occur during the voir dire jury selection process. The process allows both the defense and the prosecution to strike jurors who they believe will not decide cases fairly. However, in the case of Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that race could not be used as a factor in eliminating prospective jurors. This paper examines federal litigation for five years in which it was alleged that race was used as a factor in removing a juror. An examination of the cases revealed that most of the cases involved sole male litigants who allege that there were multiple race-based peremptory challenges used in their cases. Moreover, most of the cases that led to the allegations involved violent offenses. Other case characteristics are noted, but of most significance was the finding that most appellants lost their cases. As such, the courts felt that most of the challenges were, in fact, race neutral. The implications of this research are discussed. This study was funded by an undergraduate research grant from Penn State University.     

Victim Policy Transfer: Learning From Each Other

This paper looks at the recent introduction of victim impact statements in several European countries. It asks whether victim impact statements are a positive addition to victim policy and practice in Europe and examines the challenges of adapting to the civil legal tradition a tool that was developed in a common law country.     

生态环境损害赔偿诉讼与环境民事公益诉讼关系实证研究

从对司法实践案例的实证分析来看,我国当前所构建的社会组织提起的环境民事公益诉讼、人民检察院提起的环境民事公益诉讼和环境行政公益诉讼、地方政府作为赔偿权利人提起的生态环境损害赔偿诉讼、人民检察院提起的刑事附带环境民事公益诉讼等诉讼类型,在诉讼程序衔接上存在冲突问题。基于生态环境损害赔偿制度和环境民事公益诉讼制度的性质,赔偿权利人提起生态环境损害赔偿诉讼应优先于社会组织提起的环境民事公益诉讼,社会组织对生态损害赔偿制度规定范围外部分的损害环境公共利益的行为,有权提起环境民事公益诉讼,对生态环境损害赔偿诉讼是补充。人民检察院在提起公诉时发现行为人污染或破坏生态环境损害环境公共利益时,应首先通知赔偿权利人并督促赔偿权利人在一定期间内履行与赔偿义务人就生态环境损害赔偿事宜进行磋商及磋商不成提起生态环境损害赔偿诉讼的职责。没有合理理由,赔偿权利人不提起生态环境损害赔偿诉讼的,人民检察院有权就同一损害生态环境的行为提起附带环境民事公益诉讼。     

人民法院在线诉讼规则(法释〔2021〕12号)

为推进和规范在线诉讼活动,完善在线诉讼规则,依法保障当事人及其他诉讼参与人等诉讼主体的合法权利,确保公正高效审理案件,根据《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》等相关法律规定,结合人民法院工作实际,制定本规则。     

Judicial Career Incentives and Court Performance: An Empirical Study of the German Labour Courts of Appeal

This paper examines how the organization of a civil-law judiciary—the German labour court system—shapes court performance. It is argued that civil-law judiciaries can be considered as internal labour markets in which the main incentive derives from career opportunities. Resulting hypotheses are tested on data for nine German Labour Courts of Appeal (Landesarbeitsgerichte) over the period 1980–1998. Two performance measures are computed: the confirmation rate and a productivity measure. The confirmation rate captures how often decisions are upheld in an appeal at the Federal Labour Court. Court productivity is measured by a score derived via data envelopment analysis (DEA) and includes as outputs the number of finished cases and the number of published decisions. Regression analyses show: Courts employing more judges with a Ph.D. are more productive, but write decisions that are less often confirmed by the Federal Labour Court. Courts employing judges with higher ex ante promotion probabilities are less productive and write decisions that are less often confirmed.JEL Classification: J45, K31, M12     

启动公益诉讼的条件——论美国行政诉讼的资格

在过去近一个世纪里,美国行政法的诉讼资格范围经历了不断扩展的过程,并在此过程中产生了新的矛盾和问题。诉讼资格的扩张及其所遇到的困境体现了现代行政国家所遭遇的更为深刻的矛盾。在没有发现更为根本的解决办法的情况下,美国司法实践不失为修复民主与法治的权宜之计。     

Court Awards of Damages for Loss of Future Earnings: An Empirical Study and an Alternative Method of Calculation

This article examines the effect upon damages for personal injury of methods used in the United States of America to calculate loss of future earnings. The work of lawyers is examined from the perspective of labour economists. The damages calculated by using these alternative methods are compared with those actually awarded in over a hundred cases determined by courts in England and Wales. This interdisciplinary and comparative study reveals that the tort system fails to satisfy one of its main objectives in that it does not provide recipients of damages with 'full' compensation.     

行政诉讼中的行政首长出庭应诉制度研究

检视行政首长出庭应诉制度的文本变迁和实践运作,可以发现原本处于边缘化地位的行政首长出庭应诉制度已经上升为当前行政审判的重要制度。行政首长出庭应诉制度的兴起既是人民法院努力优化行政审判外部环境和民众寻求行政争议实质性解决的结果,更与行政机关改善自身形象寻求外力合作治理的动向密不可分。行政首长出庭应诉制度的运作目前尚存在运动化、形式化和庸俗化的误区。为了保障行政首长出庭应诉制度的有效实施,应当坚持三步走的渐进式制度运行模式并辅之相配套的裁量机制、评价机制和公开机制。     

The Georgia State Litigation: Literal Copying in Education

This case note examines the long‐standing litigation against Georgia State University in relation to the posting, by faculty and library staff, of unauthorised copies of book extracts on the University's electronic reserves and virtual learning environment. The central question in this litigation has been whether these acts of copying fall within the fair use doctrine in US copyright law. In answering this, a key question for the US courts – and one relevant to other jurisdictions with free exceptions for education, such as the UK – has been whether existing and potential licensing activity is relevant to the question of whether an exception applies. This case note discusses how market effect has been analysed in Georgia State, including the recent rejection by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of a strongly empirical approach to market harm.     

Rethinking Criminal Libel: An Empirical Study

The prevailing view of criminal libel among communication law scholars in the United States is that there are very few prosecutions, that most of the prosecutions are about politics or public issues, and that none of the prosecutions are necessary because victims of defamation can sue for civil libel. The results of an empirical study of all Wisconsin criminal libel cases from 1991 through 2007, however, suggest that criminal libel is prosecuted far more often than realized, that most criminal libel prosecutions have nothing to do with political or public issues, and that the First Amendment is an effective shield on the rare occasions when a criminal libel prosecution is politically motivated. This article concludes that criminal libel can be a legitimate way for the law to deal with expressive deviance that harms the reputations of private figures in cases that have nothing to do with public issues.     

Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation

Amicus curiae participation is a staple of interest group activity in the U.S. Supreme Court. While a reasonably large body of scholarship has accumulated regarding the effectiveness of this method of participation, little attention has been paid to examining the reasons why amicus participation might increase litigation success. In this article, I test two separate, but not mutually exclusive, theories as to why amicus briefs may be effective. The first, the affected groups hypothesis, suggests amicus briefs are influential because they signal to the Court how many groups and individuals will be potentially affected by the decision. The second, the information hypothesis, proposes that amicus briefs are effective because they provide the Court with added information that buttresses the arguments of the direct parties. When subjected to empirical verification, the results indicate that not only does amicus participation increase litigation success, but also that this influence may be best explained by the information hypothesis.