IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/v28y1999i1p101-30.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Toward a Taxonomy of Disputes: New Evidence through the Prism of the Priest/Klein Model

Author

Listed:
  • Siegelman, Peter
  • Waldfogel, Joel

Abstract

The Priest/Klein model predicts both trial rates and plaintiff win rates as functions of three structural parameters: the decision standard, parties' uncertainty in estimating case quality, and the degree of stake asymmetry across parties. Previous tests of the model are unsatisfactory because most have concentrated on its prediction of a 50 percent win rate, which only obtains as a limiting case. We gather independent evidence that describes the model's three parameters and compare it with estimates from a structural model that simultaneously estimates both trial and win rates. The model fits the data for four of our six case types. A four-parameter model, in which plaintiffs face greater uncertainty than defendants, can explain the two anomalous case types. Copyright 1999 by the University of Chicago.

Suggested Citation

  • Siegelman, Peter & Waldfogel, Joel, 1999. "Toward a Taxonomy of Disputes: New Evidence through the Prism of the Priest/Klein Model," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 101-130, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:28:y:1999:i:1:p:101-30
    DOI: 10.1086/468047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/468047
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/468047?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. Bar, Talia & Kalinowski, Jesse, 2019. "Patent validity and the timing of settlements," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    2. Freyens, Benoit Pierre & Gong, Xiaodong, 2017. "Judicial decision making under changing legal standards: The case of dismissal arbitration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 108-126.
    3. Wang, Ling & Zhang, Yujia & Yan, Yushan, 2023. "Offensive patent litigation strategic choice: An organizational routine perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    4. Yousefi Kowsar, 2018. "The More Med-Mals, the Shorter the Litigation: Evidence from Florida," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Haitian Lu & Hongbo Pan & Chenying Zhang, 2015. "Political Connectedness and Court Outcomes: Evidence from Chinese Corporate Lawsuits," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(4).
    6. Jaffe, Adam B., 2000. "The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 531-557, April.
    7. De Mot, Jef & Depoorter, Ben, 2010. "Tort law and probabilistic litigation: How to apply multipliers to address the problem of negative value suits," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 236-243, September.
    8. Poitras, Marc & Frasca, Ralph, 2011. "A unified model of settlement and trial expenditures: The PriestâKlein model extended," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 188-195, September.
    9. Zhou, Jun, 2010. "Jackpot Justice: The Value of Inefficient Litigation," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 346, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.

    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:28:y:1999:i:1:p:101-30. 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.