Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T06:36:31.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Do the “Haves” Still Come Out Ahead?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Extract

In the spring of 1998, the University of Wisconsin Law School sponsored a multidisciplinary conference to assess the impact of perhaps the most visible, widely cited, and influential article ever published in the law and society field: Marc Galanter's (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” In that article Galanter attempts to explain the outcome of trial court litigation in essentially structural terms. He discusses “the way in which the basic architecture of the legal system creates and limits the possibilities of using the system for redistributive change.” Galanter divides parties into “one shotters” and “repeat players.” A one shotter is a person, business, or organizational entity that deals with the legal system infrequently. The one shotter's claims are too large (relative to their size) or too small (relative to the cost of remedies) to be managed routinely and rationally, but a one shotter's interest in winning a particular case is very high.

Type
Articles
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

References

Blankenburg, Erhard (1994) “The Infrastructure for Avoiding Civil Litigation: Comparing Cultures of Legal Behavior in The Netherlands and West Germany,” 28 Law & Society Review 789808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epp, Charles R. (1998) The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence M. (1985) Total Justice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Rev. 95160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gusfield, Joseph (1963) Symbolic Crusade. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. (1990) “Winning and Losing in Litigation: Does the Lawyer Deliver?” in The Justice Broker: Lawyers and Ordinary Litigation. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Mnookin, Robert, & Kornhauser, Lewis (1979) “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce,” 88 Yale Law J. 950–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, Michael (1995) Rights at Work. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald (1991) The Hollow Hope. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scheingold, Stuart (1974) The Politics of Rights. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Fred R. (1996) “Symposium on the Trends in Legal Citations and Scholarship: The Most Cited Law Review Articles Revisited,” 71 Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 751–79.Google Scholar
Vidmar, Neil (1984) “The Small Claims Court: A Reconceptualization of Disputes, and an Empirical Investigation,” 18 Law & Society Rev. 515–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case Cited

Russell v. Acme-Evans Co., 51 F 3d 64, 70-71 (7th Cir., 1995).Google Scholar