Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Precedent and Doctrine in a Complicated World

  • STEVEN CALLANDER (a1) and TOM S. CLARK (a2)
Abstract

Courts resolve individual disputes and create principles of law to justify their decisions and guide the resolution of future cases. Those tasks present informational challenges that affect the whole judicial process. Judges must simultaneously learn about (1) the particular facts and legal implications of any dispute; (2) discover the doctrine that appropriately resolves the dispute; and (3) attempt to articulate those rules in the context of a single case so that future courts may reason from past cases. We propose a model of judicial learning and decision making in which there is a complicated relationship between facts and legal outcomes. The model has implications for many of the important questions in the judicial process, including the dynamics of common law development, the path-dependent nature of the law, and optimal case selection by supervisory courts.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Steven Callander is Herbert Hoover Professor of Public and Private Management, Professor of Political Economy, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University (sjc@stanford.edu).
Tom S. Clark is Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Science, Emory University (tom.clark@emory.edu).
Footnotes
Hide All
We thank Deborah Beim, Chuck Cameron, Jeff Staton, and seminar participants at Penn State, Princeton, UNSW, Stanford GSB, the Public Choice Conference, the Law and Economics Theory Conference, and the referees and editor of this journal, for helpful suggestions and comments.
Footnotes
References
Hide All
Baker, Scott, and Mezzetti, Claudio. 2012. “A Theory of Rational Jurisprudence.” Journal of Political Economy 120 (3): 513–51.
Beim, Deborah. 2015. “Learning in the Judicial Hierarchy.” Yale University working paper.
Beim, Deborah, Hirsch, Alexander V., and Kastellec, Jonathan P.. 2014. “Whistleblowing and Compliance in the Judicial Hierarchy.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 904–18.
Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan, and Stephenson, Matthew. 2002. “Informative Precedent and Intrajudicial Communication.” American Political Science Review 96 (4): 755–66.
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R.. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” The American Political Science Review 82 (4): 1109–27.
Callander, Steven. 2008. “A Theory of Policy Expertise.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3 (2): 123–40.
Callander, Steven. 2011. “Searching for Good Policies.” American Political Science Review 105 (4): 643–62.
Cameron, Charles M. 1993. “New Avenues for Modeling Judicial Politics.” Prepared for delivery at the Conference on the Political Economy of Public Law, Rochester, NY.
Cameron, Charles M., Segal, Jeffrey A., and Songer, Donald R.. 2000. “Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the Supreme Court’s Certiorari Decisions.” American Political Science Review 94 (1): 101–16.
Carrubba, Clifford J., and Clark, Tom S.. 2012. “Rule Creation in a Political Hierarchy.” American Political Science Review 106 (3): 622–43.
Clark, Tom S. 2016. “Scope and Precedent: Judicial Rule-Making Under Uncertainty.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 28 (3): 353–84.
Clark, Tom S., and Kastellec, Jonathan P.. 2013. “The Supreme Court and Percolation in the Lower Courts: An Optimal Stopping Model.” Journal of Politics 75 (1): 150–68.
Cross, Frank B. 1997. “Political Science and the New Legal Realism: A Case of Unfortunate Interdisciplinary Ignorance.” Northwestern University Law Review 92 (1): 251326.
Cross, Frank B. 2003. “Decisionmaking in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.” California Law Review 91 (6): 1457–515.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ellison, Glenn, and Holden, Richard. 2014. “A Theory of Rule Development.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organizations 30 (4): 649–82.
Feals, Jennifer. 2014. “Maine’s highest court agrees to hear new arguments in case of public access to private Kennebunkport beach.” https://bangordailynews.com/2014/03/05/news/portland/maines-highest-court-agrees-to-hear-new-arguments-in-case-of-public-access-to-private-kennebunkport-beach/
Fox, Justin, and Vanberg, Georg. 2014. “Narrow versus Broad Judicial Decisions.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 26 (3): 355–83.
Friedman, Barry. 2006. “Taking Law Seriously.” Perspectives on Politics 4 (2): 261–76.
Gailmard, Sean, and Patty, John W.. 2013. Learning While Governing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gennaioli, Nicola, and Shleifer, Andrei. 2007. “The Evolution of Common Law.” Journal of Political Economy 115 (1): 4368.
Hume, David. 1748. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jordan, Stuart. N.d. “Policymaking by Rules and Cases.” University of Rochester working paper.
Kastellec, Jonathan P., and Lax, Jeffrey R.. 2008. “Case Selection and the Study of Judicial Politics.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 5 (3): 407–46.
Kornhauser, Lewis. A. 1992 a. “Modeling Collegial Courts I: Path-Dependence.” International Review of Law and Economics 12 (2): 169–85.
Kornhauser, Lewis A. 1992 b. “Modeling Collegial Courts II: Legal Doctrine.” Journal of Law Economics & Organization 8 (3): 441–70.
Kornhauser, Lewis A. 1995. “Adjudication by a Resource-Constrained Team: Hierarchy and Precedent in a Judicial System.” Southern California Law Review 68: 1605–29.
Kritzer, Herbert M., and Richards, Mark J.. 2002. “Deciding the Supreme Court’s Administrative Law Cases: Does Chevron Matter?” Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
Lax, Jeffrey R. 2007. “Constructing Legal Rules on Appellate Courts.” American Political Science Review. 101 (3): 591604.
Lax, Jeffrey R. 2011. “The New Judicial Politics of Legal Doctrine.” Annual Review of Political Science 14: 131–57.
Lax, Jeffrey R. 2012. “Political Constriants on Legal Doctrine: How Hierarchy Shapes the Law.” Journal of Politics 74 (3): 765–81.
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Rader, Kelly T.. 2010. “Legal Constraints on Supreme Court Decision Making: Do Jurisprudential Regimes Exist?Journal of Politics 72 (2): 273–84.
Levi, Edward. 1949. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McGuire, Kevin T. 1994. “Amici Curiae and Strategies for Gaining Access to the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 47 (4): 821–37.
Perry, H. W. Jr. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sherwin, Emily. 1999. “A Defense of Analogical Reasoning in Law.” University of Chicago Law Review 66 (4): 1179–97.
Staton, Jeffrey K., and Vanberg, Georg. 2008. “The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (3): 504–19.
Stein, Peter G. 1992. “Symposium: Relationships Among Roman Law, Common Law, and Civil Law.” Tulane Law Review 66: 1591–603.
Sullivan, Kathleen M. 1992. “The Supreme Court, 1991 Term – Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards.” Harvard Law Review 106 (1): 22123.
Sunstein, Cass R. 1993. “On Analogical Reasoning.” Harvard Law Review 106 (3): 741–91.
Sunstein, Cass R. 1999. One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1972. “The Decision to Grant Certiorari as an Indicator to Decision ‘On the Merits’.” Polity 4 (4): 429–47.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed