IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/amlawe/v16y2014i1p1-39..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Likelihood Ratio Tests and Legal Decision Rules

Author

Listed:
  • Louis Kaplow

Abstract

Various legal decision-making criteria can be formulated as likelihood ratio tests, wherein liability, prohibition, or other outcomes are associated with evidence strength exceeding a posited threshold. Stating rules in this manner clarifies their nature, facilitates the comparison of conventional and optimal rules as well as the identification of differences between rules across contexts, and provides further illumination in instances in which a decision standard is not truly a likelihood ratio test.

Suggested Citation

  • Louis Kaplow, 2014. "Likelihood Ratio Tests and Legal Decision Rules," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 16(1), pages 1-39.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:amlawe:v:16:y:2014:i:1:p:1-39.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aler/aht020
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Zhiyong Liu & Yue Qiao, 2017. "Vertical Restraints, the Sylvania Case, and China’s Antitrust Enforcement," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 51(2), pages 193-215, September.
    2. Louis Kaplow, 2015. "Market Definition, Market Power," NBER Working Papers 21167, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Kaplow, Louis, 2015. "Market definition, market power," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 148-161.
    4. Alice Guerra & Barbara Luppi & Francesco Parisi, 2022. "Do presumptions of negligence incentivize optimal precautions?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 349-368, December.

    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:oup:amlawe:v:16:y:2014:i:1:p:1-39.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/aler .

    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.