IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/irlaec/v42y2015icp60-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Judicial disharmony: A study of dissent

Author

Listed:
  • Niblett, Anthony
  • Yoon, Albert H.

Abstract

While it is well documented that judges at times disagree on case outcomes, less understood is the process by which they justify their divergence. In this article, we empirically examine how judges differ in their view of the relevant law to a case. We create a unique dataset looking at the universe of published opinions in federal appellate court cases from the United States between 2001 and 2005 that include a dissenting opinion. We find that judges who disagree on the outcome of a case disagree as to which binding precedents apply. Authoring judges gravitate toward precedents that are ideologically similar to their own preferences. Precedents cited only by the majority are strongly ideologically correlated with the majority author's preferences; precedents cited only by the dissenting judge are ideologically similar to her preferences. Precedents cited by both the majority and dissent (i.e., precedent that both judges agree are relevant to the case before them) are not ideologically correlated with either judge. Our findings provide strong evidence that judicial differences over case outcomes do not reflect judges’ divergent interpretations of the same precedent, but gravitation towards largely different precedent.

Suggested Citation

  • Niblett, Anthony & Yoon, Albert H., 2015. "Judicial disharmony: A study of dissent," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 60-71.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:42:y:2015:i:c:p:60-71
    DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2014.12.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818814000854
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.irle.2014.12.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael A. Bailey, 2007. "Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 433-448, July.
    2. Gerber, Scott D. & Park, Keeok, 1997. "The Quixotic Search for Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court: A Cross-Judicial Empirical Analysis of the Rehnquist Court Justices," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(2), pages 390-408, June.
    3. Smith, Joseph L & Tiller, Emerson H, 2002. "The Strategy of Judging: Evidence from Administrative Law," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 61-82, January.
    4. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 134-153, April.
    5. Landes, William M & Posner, Richard A, 1976. "Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(2), pages 249-307, August.
    6. Chad Westerland, 2007. "The Judicial Common Space 1," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 303-325, June.
    7. Stephen J. Choi & G. Mitu Gulati, 2008. "Bias in Judicial Citations: A Window into the Behavior of Judges?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 87-129, January.
    8. Michael Abramowicz & Emerson H. Tiller, 2009. "Citation to Legislative History: Empirical Evidence on Positive Political and Contextual Theories of Judicial Decision Making," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 419-443, June.
    9. Virginia A. Hettinger & Stefanie A. Lindquist & Wendy L. Martinek, 2004. "Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 123-137, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Felipe de Mendonça Lopes, 2019. "Dissent Aversion and Sequential Voting in the Brazilian Supreme Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 933-954, December.
    2. Muro, Sergio & Amaral-Garcia, Sofia & Chehtman, Alejandro & Garoupa, Nuno, 2020. "Exploring dissent in the Supreme Court of Argentina," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    3. Nuno Garoupa & Laura Salamero-Teixidó & Adrián Segura, 2022. "Disagreeing in private or dissenting in public: an empirical exploration of possible motivations," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 147-173, April.
    4. Garoupa, Nuno & Grajzl, Peter, 2020. "Spurred by legal tradition or contextual politics? Lessons about judicial dissent from Slovenia and Croatia," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sarel, Roee & Demirtas, Melanie, 2021. "Delegation in a multi-tier court system: Are remands in the U.S. federal courts driven by moral hazard?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    2. Ryan C. Black & James F. Spriggs, 2013. "The Citation and Depreciation of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 325-358, June.
    3. Yonatan Lupu & James H. Fowler, 2013. "Strategic Citations to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 151-186.
    4. Spruk, Rok & Kovac, Mitja, 2019. "Replicating and extending Martin-Quinn scores," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    5. Mindock, Maxwell R. & Waddell, Glen R., 2019. "Vote Influence in Group Decision-Making: The Changing Role of Justices' Peers on the Supreme Court," IZA Discussion Papers 12317, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Richard Holden & Michael Keane & Matthew Lilley, 2021. "Peer effects on the United States Supreme Court," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 981-1019, July.
    7. Bertomeu Juan González & Pellegrina Lucia Dalla & Garoupa Nuno, 2017. "Estimating Judicial Ideal Points in Latin America: The Case of Argentina," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 1-35, March.
    8. Christoph Engel, 2024. "The German Constitutional Court – Activist, but not Partisan?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_04, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    9. Chen, Daniel L. & Michaeli, Moti & Spiro, Daniel, 2020. "Legitimizing Policy," IAST Working Papers 20-107, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    10. Chen, Daniel L. & Michaeli, Moti & Spiro, Daniel, 2016. "Ideological Perfectionism," IAST Working Papers 16-47, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    11. Muro, Sergio & Amaral-Garcia, Sofia & Chehtman, Alejandro & Garoupa, Nuno, 2020. "Exploring dissent in the Supreme Court of Argentina," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    12. Lerner, Joshua Y. & McCubbins, Mathew D. & Renberg, Kristen M., 2021. "The efficacy of measuring judicial ideal points: The mis-analogy of IRTs," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    13. John Szmer & Robert K. Christensen & Samuel Grubbs, 2020. "What influences the influence of U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 55-81, February.
    14. Leighton Vaughan Williams, 2015. "Forecasting the decisions of the US Supreme Court: lessons from the ‘affordable care act’ judgment," Journal of Prediction Markets, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 9(1), pages 64-78.
    15. Giansiracusa, Noah & Ricciardi, Cameron, 2019. "Computational geometry and the U.S. Supreme Court," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-9.
    16. Daniel Lee, 2014. "Third-party threat and the dimensionality of major-party roll call voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 515-531, June.
    17. Bonica, Adam & Chilton, Adam S. & Sen, Maya, 2015. "The Political Ideologies of American Lawyers," Working Paper Series 15-049, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    18. Michael A. Bailey & Anton Strezhnev & Erik Voeten, 2017. "Estimating Dynamic State Preferences from United Nations Voting Data," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(2), pages 430-456, February.
    19. Richard F. Potthoff, 2018. "Estimating Ideal Points from Roll-Call Data: Explore Principal Components Analysis, Especially for More Than One Dimension?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-27, January.
    20. Keren Weinshall & Udi Sommer & Ya'acov Ritov, 2018. "Ideological influences on governance and regulation: The comparative case of supreme courts," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 334-352, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:42:y:2015:i:c:p:60-71. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.