Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T06:26:22.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Classic at 25: Reflections on Galanter's “Haves” Article and Work It Has Inspired

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Richard Lempert
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This piece comments on Galanter's article “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead” and on articles in this symposium that extend Galanter's thesis or put it to an empirical test. It suggests, first, that none of this work goes very far in explaining why the “haves” do better than the “have nots” in social or even legal life; second, that it has yet to be shown that repeat playing is important to litigation; and third, that despite the passage of 25 years, it is still not clear that in litigation the “haves” come out ahead.

Type
Comments
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 33 , Issue 4: Do the “Haves” Still Come Out Ahead? , 1999 , pp. 1099 - 1112
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Law and Society Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albiston, Catherine (1999) “The Rule of Law and the Litigation Process: The Paradox of Losing by Winning,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 869–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotan, Yoav (1999) “Do the ‘Haves’ Still Come Out Ahead? Resource Inequalities in Ideological Courts: The Case of the Israeli High Court of Justice,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 1059–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., & Suchman, Mark C. (1999) “When the ‘Haves’ Hold Court: Speculations on the Organizational Internalization of Law,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 941–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farole, Donald J. Jr. (1999) “Reexamining Litigant Success in State Supreme Courts,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 1043–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Rev. 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Beth (1999) “Representing Homeless Families: Repeat Player Implementation Strategies,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 911–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendley, Kathryn, Murrell, Peter, & Ryterman, Randi (1999) “Do Repeat Players Behave Differently in Russia? Contractual and Litigation Behavior of Russian Enterprises,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 833–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalven, Harry Jr., & Zeisel, Hans (1966) The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
McEwen, Craig A., & Maiman, Richard J. (1984) “Mediation in Small Claims Court: Achieving Compliance through Consent,” 18 Law & Society Rev. 11–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., & Sheehan, Reginald S. (1992) “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals, 1925–1988,” 36 American J. of Political Science 235–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Sheehan, Reginald S., & Haire, Susan Brodie (1999) “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter's Framework to the Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 811–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidmar, Neil (1984) “The Small Claims Court: A Re-conceptualization of Disputes and an Empirical Investigation,” 18 Law & Society Rev. 515–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, Stanton, Cartwright, Bliss, Kagan, Robert, & Friedman, Lawrence (1987) “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in the State Supreme Courts, 1870–1970,” 21 Law & Society Rev. 403–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar