scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Judicial opinion

About: Judicial opinion is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 5300 publications have been published within this topic receiving 64803 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe how and why gray marketing occurs in the context of legal and illegal (shadow) marketing activities, and the regulatory and judicial decisions relating to gray marketing activities.
Abstract: The authors describe how and why gray marketing occurs in the context of legal and illegal (shadow) marketing activities. The regulatory and judicial decisions relating to gray marketing activities...

110 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The discrepancy and its analysis responsibility and the verdict no offence intended doctoring the sentence playing the labels treatment versus punishment were found in this paper, and no one intended to doctor the sentence.
Abstract: The discrepancy and its analysis responsibility and the verdict no offence intended doctoring the sentence playing the labels treatment versus punishment.

110 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue that the relationships between judges and other policy makers in separation-of-powers systems are central to understanding the puzzle of why judges craft opinions that risk noncompliance, and identify conditions under which judges use vagueness precisely as legislatures use statutory discretion.
Abstract: An established line of research demonstrates that vague judicial opinions are less likely to be implemented than clear opinions. Vague opinions thus present a puzzle. Why would judges craft opinions that risk noncompliance? We argue that the relationships between judges and other policy makers in separation-of-powers systems are central to understanding this puzzle. Opinion vagueness can reflect efforts to resolve core tradeoffs associated with judicial policymaking that bear some resemblance to standard accounts of political delegation. Vagueness offers judges the ability to manage their uncertainty over policy outcomes and to hide likely defiance from public view. At the same time, vagueness removes a central source of pressure for compliance that judges can place on other policy makers. Using a game-theoretic model, we identify conditions under which judges use vagueness precisely as legislatures use statutory discretion. We also demonstrate conditions under which judges use vagueness in ways unanticipated by standard delegation accounts.

109 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In a comprehensive analysis of common law doctrines, Richard Posner as discussed by the authors argues that the precedents established in the law of property, law of contracts, and the Law of torts reflect the standard of economic efficiency.
Abstract: IN a comprehensive analysis of common law doctrines, Richard Posner1 argues that the precedents established in the law of property, law of contracts, and the law of torts reflect the standard of economic efficiency. This is a surprising finding in view of the vagaries of individual cases and the disparate motives of the judges involved. It is more surprising still when one considers that judicial decisions were couched in the language of morality, fairness, and justice without explicit reference to anything resembling the modern conception of economic efficiency. Two explanations have been offered to account for this phenomenon. The first, relating to judicial motivation, argues either that common law judges tended to prefer efficiency or, at least, that there was no other plausible motivation which could produce an inefficiency bias.2 The chief limitation of this argument is that, while it may be true, it is largely a conjecture about facts that are somewhat difficult to verify. The second explanation looks upon the evolution of common law as a process of natural selection in which efficient rules survive because they will be less prone to challenge by repeated litigation. The argument, made by Rubin3 and amplified by Priest,4 is that the more inefficient a legal rule, the greater the social cost it imposes and, thus, the greater the probability that it will be challenged through litigation since the benefits of litigation versus

109 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors assess the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches on the geographic constituency involved in the case, and find that high levels of information about the decision increases support for the decision among those for whom the decision is relatively less salient.
Abstract: We argue that the standard methodology for assessing the impact of Supreme Court decisions on public opinion, which relies on national surveys to measure public attitudes before and after relevant Court decisions, fails, among other grounds, to account for the fact that the overwhelming majority of Court decisions speak to particular constituencies only. We assess the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches on the geographic constituencies involved in the case. We interviewed a random sample of residents in the town of Center Moriches and in the surrounding county of Suffolk, New York, before and after the decision. Consistent with the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (Petty and Cacioppo 1986), we find that high levels of information about the decision increases support for the Court's decision among those for whom the decision is relatively less salient.

109 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
International law
52K papers, 556.6K citations
81% related
Human rights
98.9K papers, 1.1M citations
79% related
Legitimacy
26.1K papers, 565.9K citations
78% related
Prison
25.1K papers, 470.4K citations
78% related
Democracy
108.6K papers, 2.3M citations
75% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
202314
202242
202196
2020160
2019174
2018176