IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v22y2025i1p114-129.html

The Impact of Judicial Leadership on Consensus Formation: Evidence From the Supreme Court of Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Henrik Litleré Bentsen
  • Jon Kåre Skiple
  • Mark Jonathan McKenzie
  • Gunnar Grendstad

Abstract

Which judicial leaders are more successful in achieving consensus? This article examines the impact of the leadership of presiding justices on consensus formation on the Norwegian Supreme Court where cases are distributed randomly to two parallel decisional panels. We hypothesize that presiding justices with certain characteristics (e.g., gender and chief justice), when in charge of the decision‐making process, are more willing and better able to forge consensus, which could lead to greater respect for courts and the rule of law. We account for a variety of characteristics of the justices, as well as several conditions under which the cases were decided. The results confirm that both chief justices and female justices, when operating as the presiding justice of the panel, are significantly more likely to steer the case towards a unanimous decision as compared to their fellow justices. Legal academics serving as presiding justices had no discernable impact on consensus formation. The results provide evidence outside the American context that chief justices and women justices have the ability to achieve greater consensus. As such, diversity and appointments have consequences for judicial leadership and for consensus formation on a court.

Suggested Citation

  • Henrik Litleré Bentsen & Jon Kåre Skiple & Mark Jonathan McKenzie & Gunnar Grendstad, 2025. "The Impact of Judicial Leadership on Consensus Formation: Evidence From the Supreme Court of Norway," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 114-129, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:22:y:2025:i:1:p:114-129
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12408
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12408?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert S. Erikson, 2022. "Appellate court assignments as a natural experiment: Gender panel effects in sex discrimination cases," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 423-446, June.
    2. Christoph Engel, 2022. "Lucky you: Your case is heard by a seasoned panel—Panel effects in the German Constitutional Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 1179-1221, December.
    3. Hanretty, Chris, 2013. "The Decisions and Ideal Points of British Law Lords," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 703-716, July.
    4. Paul M. Collins, Jr. & Wendy L. Martinek, 2011. "The Small Group Context: Designated District Court Judges in the U.S. Courts of Appeals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 177-205, March.
    5. Nuno Garoupa & Marian Gili & Fernando Gómez‐Pomar, 2012. "Political Influence and Career Judges: An Empirical Analysis of Administrative Review by the Spanish Supreme Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 795-826, December.
    6. Tilko Swalve, 2022. "Does Group Familiarity Improve Deliberations in Judicial Teams? Evidence from the German Federal Court of Justice," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 223-249, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    2. Amaral-Garcia Sofia & Garoupa Nuno, 2017. "Judicial Behavior and Devolution at the Privy Council," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(3), pages 1-40, November.
    3. repec:osf:socarx:p354r_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Christoph Engel, 2022. "Lucky you: Your case is heard by a seasoned panel—Panel effects in the German Constitutional Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 1179-1221, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Sofia Amaral-Garcia, 2015. "Non-economic Damages in Medical Malpractice Appeals: Does the Jurisdiction Make a Difference?," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1506, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    7. Christoph Engel, 2024. "The German Constitutional Court - Activist, but not Partisan?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2024_04, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    8. Hoffmann, Jakob & Glückler, Johannes & Khuchua, Tamar & Lachapelle, Francois & Lazega, Emmanuel & Zipf, Marius, 2024. "Legalist and realist decision-making in patent law: Validity cases in Germany," SocArXiv p354r, Center for Open Science.
    9. Garoupa, Nuno & Grembi, Veronica, 2015. "Judicial review and political partisanship: Moving from consensual to majoritarian democracy," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 32-45.
    10. Freyens, Benoit Pierre & Gong, Xiaodong, 2020. "Judicial arbitration of unfair dismissal cases: The role of peer effects," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    11. Hirofumi Miwa, 2025. "Assessing the Conservative Nature of the Supreme Court of Japan via Ideal Point Estimation of Justices," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 186-215, June.
    12. Bertoli, Paola & Garcia, Adriana G. & Garoupa, Nuno, 2022. "Testing an application of the political insurance model: The case of the Mexican state-level administrative courts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 272-287.
    13. Joan Josep Vallbé & Carmen Ramírez‐Folch, 2023. "The effect of judges' gender on decisions regarding intimate‐partner violence," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 641-668, September.
    14. 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.
    15. Wessel Wijtvliet & Arthur Dyevre, 2021. "Judicial ideology in economic cases: Evidence from the General Court of the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 25-45, March.
    16. Spruk, Rok & Kovac, Mitja, 2019. "Replicating and extending Martin-Quinn scores," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    17. Marius Zipf & Johannes Glückler & Tamar Khuchua & Emmanuel Lazega & François Lachapelle & Jakob Hoffmann, 2023. "The Judicial Geography of Patent Litigation in Germany: Implications for the Institutionalization of the European Unified Patent Court," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, May.
    18. Sofia Amaral-Garcia, 2019. "Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Non-Economic Damages Differently?," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/301273, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    19. Nuno Garoupa & Fernando Gómez Pomar & Adrián Segura & Sheila Canudas, 2023. "Punishing terrorists in the Spanish Supreme Court: has ideology played any role?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 1-21, August.
    20. Virginia Rosales & Dolores Jiménez-Rubio, 2017. "Empirical analysis of civil litigation determinants: The Case of Spain," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 321-338, 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:wly:empleg:v:22:y:2025:i:1:p:114-129. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    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.