S
Stephen J. Choi
Researcher at New York University
Publications - 162
Citations - 3505
Stephen J. Choi is an academic researcher from New York University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Shareholder & Capital market. The author has an hindex of 34, co-authored 157 publications receiving 3380 citations. Previous affiliations of Stephen J. Choi include University of Chicago & University of California, Berkeley.
Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Professionals or Politicians: The Uncertain Empirical Case for an Elected Rather Than Appointed Judiciary
TL;DR: The authors found that appointed judges write higher quality opinions than elected judges do, but elected judges write many more opinions, and the evidence suggests that the large quantity difference makes up for the small quality difference.
Journal ArticleDOI
Professionals or Politicians: The Uncertain Empirical Case for an Elected Rather than Appointed Judiciary
TL;DR: The authors used a data set of state high court opinions to construct measures for three aspects of judicial performance: effort, skill, and independence, and found that elected judges focus on providing service to the voters, whereas appointed judges care more about their long-term legacy as creators of precedent.
Journal ArticleDOI
Altruism Exchanges and the Kidney Shortage
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose legal reforms that would strengthen the incentive to donate based on altruistic motives, which would solve two significant problems with the current system of voluntary kidney donations: the risk of default and the lack of liquidity.
Journal ArticleDOI
What Do Federal District Judges Want? An Analysis of Publications, Citations, and Reversals
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors report evidence from a dataset of federal district judges from 2001 to 2002 that district judges adjust their opinion-writing practices to minimize their workload while maximizing their reputation and chance for elevation to a higher court.
Journal ArticleDOI
Are Judges Overpaid?: A Skeptical Response to the Judicial Salary Debate
TL;DR: In this article, an empirical study of the high court judges of the 50 states provides little evidence that raising salaries would improve judicial performance, and the case for a pay raise has not been made.