| LDR | | 00000nam u2200205 4500 |
| 001 | | 000000436866 |
| 005 | | 20200228153714 |
| 008 | | 200131s2019 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d |
| 020 | |
▼a 9781088382400 |
| 035 | |
▼a (MiAaPQ)AAI13808401 |
| 040 | |
▼a MiAaPQ
▼c MiAaPQ
▼d 247004 |
| 082 | 0 |
▼a 340 |
| 100 | 1 |
▼a Crichton, Ian Charles. |
| 245 | 10 |
▼a Legal Doctrine and Judicial Behavior: A Micro-Level Empirical Analysis of How Law Affects Judicial Choice. |
| 260 | |
▼a [S.l.]:
▼b Yale University.,
▼c 2019. |
| 260 | 1 |
▼a Ann Arbor:
▼b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses,
▼c 2019. |
| 300 | |
▼a 211 p. |
| 500 | |
▼a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-04, Section: A. |
| 500 | |
▼a Advisor: Beim, Deborah. |
| 502 | 1 |
▼a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Yale University, 2019. |
| 506 | |
▼a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors. |
| 520 | |
▼a Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest among political scientists in the ways law is shaped by judges' decision making and the way judicial choice, in turn, is structured by law. Many scholars now emphasize the importance of "taking law seriously". But the literature that has developed from this admonition has been almost entirely theoretical, with little effort to operationalize and test the myriad predictions generated by formal models. Also, with a few exceptions, most of this literature still views the law of a case as monolithic rather than treating legal doctrine as a collection of constituent issues combined with rules for aggregating issue-level results into a substantive outcome for the case.In this Dissertation, I provide empirical tests of two ways in which legal doctrine and judicial choice might interact. One possibility is that judges could simultaneously comply with and mitigate the effect of an adverse Supreme Court precedent by substituting a different legal issue unaffected by the precedent as the vehicle for reaching their desired political outcome. Testing this proposition on a new data set of administrative law cases in the period surrounding Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, I find evidence of just such a substitution effect.A second possible role for legal doctrine stems from the observation that the logical structure of the rules aggregating individual legal issues into substantive outcomes-and the issues still in dispute at a given stage of litigation-can inherently advantage one side of the case over the other. I develop this idea formally, and then test it on a new set of data compiled from cases decided by federal appellate courts from 1995 to 2004. Despite using multiple measures of possible advantage, I do not find evidence supporting this theory. But, the results do demonstrate other significant relationships between the structure of legal doctrine and judicial voting decisions.Taken together, the results presented suggest examination of legal doctrine at the micro level offers the potential to develop significant new insights into the decisions judges make. They also hint that certain assumptions commonly made in the study of the courts require reevaluation. Most prominent among these is the assumption that judges derive utility from the substantive outcomes of cases and not from the holdings they make on individual legal issues. |
| 590 | |
▼a School code: 0265. |
| 650 | 4 |
▼a Political science. |
| 650 | 4 |
▼a Law. |
| 690 | |
▼a 0615 |
| 690 | |
▼a 0398 |
| 710 | 20 |
▼a Yale University.
▼b Political Science. |
| 773 | 0 |
▼t Dissertations Abstracts International
▼g 81-04A. |
| 773 | |
▼t Dissertation Abstract International |
| 790 | |
▼a 0265 |
| 791 | |
▼a Ph.D. |
| 792 | |
▼a 2019 |
| 793 | |
▼a English |
| 856 | 40 |
▼u http://www.riss.kr/pdu/ddodLink.do?id=T15490539
▼n KERIS
▼z 이 자료의 원문은 한국교육학술정보원에서 제공합니다. |
| 980 | |
▼a 202002
▼f 2020 |
| 990 | |
▼a ***1816162 |
| 991 | |
▼a E-BOOK |