Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T06:30:22.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reexamining Litigant Success in State Supreme Courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Donald J. Farole Jr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since Marc Galanter (1974) formulated the hypothesis that parties with greater resources, usually “repeat players,” fare better in courts and are better able to influence legal change than “one shotters,” numerous scholars have provided empirical insights into the extent to which stronger parties enjoy advantages in litigation. Studies of U.S. trial courts provide evidence that “haves” do tend to come out ahead (Galanter 1974; Owen 1971; Wanner 1975). Governments generally have been more successful in litigation than businesses and other organizations, which in turn have been more successful than individual litigants. Greater resources allow the “haves” to hire the best lawyers and incur the expenses for extensive discovery, expert witnesses, appeals to higher courts, and other activities. As repeat players, they can structure their interactions with the courts by carefully selecting cases to pursue, engaging in forum shopping, settling cases when the prospects appear low for success at trial or on appeal, implementing comprehensive litigation strategies, and developing favorable legal precedents.

Type
Research Notes
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 33 , Issue 4: Do the “Haves” Still Come Out Ahead? , 1999 , pp. 1043 - 1058
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.)

Footnotes

A preliminary version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association in Chicago, April 1998. The research was funded in part by grants from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. I thank Nina Gunther, Seth McLaughlin, Michael Tobin, and Michael Vos for their research assistance. I also thank Charles Epp, Steven Puro, Jennifer Segal, and Gregory McAvoy for their comments and suggestions.

References

Caplan, Lincoln (1987) The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Cigler, Beverly A. (1995) “Not Just Another Special Interest: Intergovernmental Representation,” in Cigler, A.J. & Loomis, B.A., eds., Interest Group Politics, 4th Ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee (1994) “Exploring the Participation of Organized Interests in State Court Litigation,” 47 Political Research Q. 335–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farole, Donald J. Jr. (1998) Interest Groups and Judicial Federalism: Organizational Litigation in State Judiciaries. Westport, CT: Praeger Press.Google Scholar
Flemming, Roy B., Nardulli, Peter F., & Eisenstein, James (1992) The Craft of Justice: Politics and Work in Criminal Court Communities. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Social Change,” 9 Law & Society Rev. 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heumann, Milton (1978) Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kilwein, John C., & Brisbin, Richard A. Jr. (1997) “Policy Convergence in a Federal Judicial System: The Application of Intensified Scrutiny Doctrines by States Supreme Courts,” 41 American J. of Political Science 122–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, Harold J. (1971) “The Role of Trial Courts in the Local Political System: A Comparison of Two Georgia Counties.” Unpublished Ph.D. diss., Political Science Department, Univ. of Georgia.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Reginald S., Mishler, William, & Songer, Donald R. (1992) “Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the Supreme Court,” 86 American Political Science Rev. 464–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skowronek, Stephen (1982) Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R. & Sheehan, Reginald S. (1992) “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals,” 36 American J. of Political Science 235–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold (1994) US Supreme Court Judicial Database, 1953-1992 Terms. US Supreme Court Judicial Database, 1953-1992 Terms: ICPSR Study #9422.Google Scholar
Waltenburg, Eric N., & Swinford, Bill (1998) Litigating Federalism: The States Before the U.S. Supreme Court. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Wanner, Craig (1975) “The Public Ordering of Private Relations: Part I: Initiating Civil Cases in Urban Trial Courts,” 8 Law & Society Rev. 421–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, Stanton, Cartwright, Bliss, Kagan, Robert A., & Friedman, Lawrence M. (1987) “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870–1970,” 21 Law & Society Rev. 403–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar