Why do Plainti s Lose Appeals? Biased Trial Courts, Litigious Losers, or Low Trial Win Rates?
Multiple studies find that plaintiffs who lose at trial and subsequently appeal are less successful on appeal than are losing defendants who appeal. The studies attribute this to a perception by appellate judges that trial courts are biased in favor of plaintiffs. However, at least two alternative explanations exist. First, losing plaintiffs may appeal at higher rates independent of the potential merits. Second, if plaintiffs tend to pursue to trial lawsuits where they should win on the merits less than half the time, then errors at trial will be more likely to adversely affect defendants. This study revisits the analysis of the appellate process with a theoretical model that has implications not only for appellate outcomes but for the rate of appeal. By tying together win rates at trial, appeals rates, and success rates on appeal, the model can distinguish the competing explanations for di erential appellate success rates. We estimate this model using matched data on Federal District Court trials and appeals to the U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. We provide evidence that the lower plaintiffs success rate on appeal is due to plaintiffs' pursuing lawsuits where they should win on the merits (which we define to be an outcome that will not be reversed or remanded on appeal) less than half the time. We also provide evidence against explaining asymmetric success on appeal being attributable to trial courts favoring plainti s and evidence against juries being favorable to plaintiffs compared to judges.
|Date of creation:||Jul 2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Firestone Library, Princeton, New Jersey 08544-2098|
Phone: 609 258-4041
Fax: 609 258-2907
Web page: http://www.irs.princeton.edu/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pri:indrel:dsp012v23vt39h. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (David Long)The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask David Long to update the entry or send us the correct email address
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.