Plaintiphobia in State Courts Redux? An Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal
30 Pages Posted: 17 Oct 2013 Last revised: 23 Dec 2013
Date Written: October 16, 2013
Abstract
Prior federal and state civil appeals studies show that appeals courts overturn jury verdicts more than bench decisions and that defendants fare better than plaintiffs on appeal. Attitudinal and selection effect hypotheses may help explain an appellate court tilt that favors defendants. This study builds on and extends our prior work on state civil appeals and examines a comprehensive state court civil appeals data set to test leading theories on appellate outcomes as well as to explore the relation between plaintiff success at trial and on appeal. Using data from 40 different states and 141 counties on 8,872 completed civil trials and 646 concluded appeals, we find that appellate reversal rates for jury trials and defendant appeals exceed reversal rates for bench trials and plaintiff appeals. The reversal rate for plaintiff appeals is 21 percent, compared with 40.9 percent for defendant appeals. The reversal rate for jury trials is 33.1 percent, compared with 25 percent for bench trials. Both the attitudinal and selection effect hypotheses find some level of support in our descriptive analyses and results from more formal models. Finally, we find little correlation between how plaintiffs fare at trial and how they fare on appeal.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
How Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs Fare in Federal Court
-
By Michael Heise, Theodore Eisenberg, ...
-
Plaintiphobia in State Courts? An Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal
By Theodore Eisenberg and Michael Heise
-
Plaintiphobia in the Appellate Courts: Civil Rights Really Do Differ from Negotiable Instruments?
-
The Rule of Law and the Litigation Process: the Paradox of Losing by Winning
-
Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs in Federal Court: From Bad to Worse?