The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Dispute Processing and a Longitudinal Approach to Trial Courts
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
“What He Did Was Lawful”: Divorce Litigation and Gender Inequality inChina
Li, K. (2015) · Law & Policy · doi:10.1111/lapo.12034 · Cited by 37
Land Dispossession and Women’s Rights Contention in Rural China
Li, K. (2020) · China Law and Society Review · doi:10.1163/25427466-00501002 · Cited by 12
Courts, Criminal Process, and AIDS: The Institutionalization of Culture in Legal Decision Making*
Gregware, P. R. (1994) · Law & Policy · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9930.1994.tb00129.x · Cited by 4
Renewing the Longitudinal Study of Trial Courts
Peel, P. (2017) · Justice System Journal · doi:10.1080/0098261x.2017.1306816 · Cited by 2
“Other authors, too, criticized the literature on explicitly normative grounds (Lempert 1990; Van Loon and Langerwerf 1990; Mather 1990; Mather and Yngyesson 1983; Munger 1988; Sanders 1990; Daniels 1984, 1990; Engel 1990; Seron 1990; Stookey 1990).”
Background'What He Did Was Lawful.' Divorce Litigation and Gender Inequality in Rural ChinaPreprint
Li, K. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2388189 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Mather, L.
- Affiliations
- University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mather, Lynn
- Venue
- Law & Society Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- 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
- Open access
- 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