IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/v24y1995i1p209-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Trial Selection Hypothesis without the 50 Percent Rule: Some Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas, Robert E

Abstract

The selection hypothesis, known for its conclusion that plaintiffs win 50 percent of trials, posits that (1) trials are disproportionately selected from disputes close to the decision standard (the selection effect), (2) the range of disputes that go to trial decreases in the precision of attorney estimates of defendant fault, and (3) attorney estimates are essentially perfect. This article uses experimental methods to examine implications of the selection hypothesis. The results provide support for a selection effect, but there is no evidence of a relation between trial disputes and estimation precision. Instead, the difference between the two sides' estimates as well as the closeness of the dispute are the most significant determinants of dispute disposition. These results suggest that if attorneys estimate fault imperfectly, trials occur when attorneys draw extreme values from the distributions of their estimates. If systematic biases exist, then plaintiff win rates vary with the dispute type. Copyright 1995 by the University of Chicago.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas, Robert E, 1995. "The Trial Selection Hypothesis without the 50 Percent Rule: Some Experimental Evidence," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 209-228, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:24:y:1995:i:1:p:209-28
    DOI: 10.1086/467958
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467958
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/467958?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Wladislaw Mill & Jonathan Stäbler, 2023. "Spite in Litigation," CESifo Working Paper Series 10290, CESifo.
    2. Yannick Gabuthy & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2013. "Analyse économique du droit et méthode expérimentale," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-00746617, HAL.
    3. Kirstein, Roland & Rickman, Neil, 2001. "FORIS contracts: Litigation Cost Shifting and Contingent Fees in Germany," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 2001-04, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
    4. repec:hal:wpaper:halshs-00746617 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Pecorino, Paul & Van Boening, Mark, 2001. "Bargaining and Information: An Empirical Analysis of A Multistage Arbitration Game," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(4), pages 922-948, October.

    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:ucp:jlstud:v:24:y:1995:i:1:p:209-28. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    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.