Cited by 9Judicial and Constitutional StudiesLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsDispute Resolution and Class Actions

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Dispute Processing and a Longitudinal Approach to Trial Courts

Open access
Mather, Lynn·1990·Law & Society Review

Abstract

This article suggests ways to integrate the insights and findings of two rather distinct fields: docket-based, longitudinal studies of trial courts and studies of dispute processing. In particular, I argue that longitudinal research on courts would benefit enormously from the incorporation of concepts and data on dispute processing. For example, instead of taking court cases as the starting point for study, longitudinal research should explore the multistage and transformative nature of disputing. Historical data should also be collected on the nature of the relationships between opposing litigants, on the roles played by participants other than the litigants (lawyers, supporters, audiences, third parties), and on the nature of processes within courts and within alternative community institutions for handling disputes. Longitudinal research can also contribute to our understanding of dispute processing by showing how current processes have been shaped by past use, and how changes in institutions and legal doctrine have influenced the definition and processing of disputes. I also discuss the weaknesses shared by some of the research in both fields, such as a greater concern for process than for outcome, a tendency to ignore political aspects of litigation, and an overemphasis on individual disputing behavior. I conclude by suggesting that longitudinal research on trial courts should pay greater attention to change in ideas about law and to shifting conceptions of right and wrong, cause and responsibility, and problem definition.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3053685

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mather, L.
Affiliations
University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Mather, Lynn
Venue
Law & Society Review
Published
1990
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
357-370
ISSN
  • 0023-9216 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5893
OpenAlex
W2330168114
Cited by
9
References
0
Citations by year
2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2
FWCI
15.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Law & Society Review (publishedVersion)
  • bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
  • Social Sciences › Law › Dispute Resolution and Class Actions
Keywords
dispute processing, trial courts, litigation, alternative dispute resolution, legal change, problem formulation, legal doctrine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review