Do the “Haves” Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter's Framework to Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925-1988
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7328586 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Donald R Songer (University of South Carolina), Reginald S Sheehan, Susan B Haire (0000-0001-8031-7988) |
| Year | 1999 |
| Volume | 33 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 811-832 |
| Publication date | 1999-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Law & Society Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0023-9216 • E-ISSN: 1540-5893 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/3115151 |
| OpenAlex | W2040673418 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 55 |
| References cited | 14 |
This investigation examines the success of various types of litigants appearing before the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1925 to 1988. The analysis parallels the earlier studies by Songer and Sheehan (1992) and Wheeler et al. (1987) that applied the core concepts introduced by Galanter's groundbreaking analysis of why the “haves” come out ahead to study litigant success on the U.S. Courts of Appeals and state courts of last resort. The findings suggest that repeat player litigants with substantial organizational strength (“haves”) are much more likely to win in the federal courts of appeals than one-shot litigants with fewer resources. The “haves” win more frequently in published decisions, even after controls are introduced for the ideological makeup of the panel. The advantage in appellate litigation enjoyed by repeat player “haves” is remarkably consistent over time. In particular, the U.S. government has compiled an impressive record in these courts by dominating opposing litigants over the 64-year period of analysis
Economics · Government (linguistics · Ideology · Parallels · Political science · Politics · Sociology · State (computer science · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal Education and Practice Innovations
The Judicial Process and Public Policy
The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court
Supply-Side Dynamics of the US Supreme Court Docket
Who Are You and What’s Your Issue? Winning in Collective Litigation in Colombia
Contextualizing the “Black Box”
Explaining Indigenous Peoples’ Success in State Supreme Courts
Party Capability and the US Courts of Appeals
Inmate Litigation, Legal Access, and Prison Privatization
The Differential Effect of War on Liberal and Conservative Judges on the US Courts of Appeals
Preserving Institutional Power
Half Empty, Half Full, or Neither
Legal Discrimination
Judges and Friends
The Untold History of Transparency
Government Lawyers and Non-judicial Constitutional Review in Estonia
When Loan Sharks Become Litigious
American Law in Japanese Perspective
Litigant participation and success in water rights cases in the Western States
By the Letter of Law? The Effects of Administrative Adjudication for Resolving Disputes in NYC’s Restaurant Grading Initiative
Municipalities at Court
Friends of the Circuits
Do the “Haves” Come Out Ahead? Resource Disparity in Public‐Land Usurpation Litigation in Taiwan
Reading between the Lines
Litigant status, judicial ideology, and the gatekeeping of expert evidence
Biased Judgments without Biased Judges
The Fate of Black’s Theory of Law
Punishing environmental offenders
Leveling and Spotlighting
The Politics of Administrative Law Judge Decision Making at the Environmental Protection Agency in Civil Penalty Cases
Change over Tenure
A higher bar
The Precedent That Wasn't
Haves" Versus "Have Nots" in State Supreme Courts
DoestheLawyer Matter? Influencing Outcomes on the Supreme Court of Canada
Beyond Repeat Players
Rethinking Critical Mass in the Federal Appellate Courts
Jurisdiction Stripping
Family Gatherings and a Dirty Little Secret of the Law and Society Association
Splitting the Difference
How Dispute Resolution System Design Matters
Is the Sum Greater than Its Parts? Circuit Court Composition and Judicial Behavior in the Courts of Appeals
The Role of Case Complexity in Judicial Decision Making
Is the Expert Admissibility Game Fixed
Why the “Haves” Do Not Necessarily Come Out Ahead in Informal Dispute Resolution
Litigant Status and Trial Court Appeal Mobilization
Subnational disparities in EU law use
Judging government economic performance
Building an Integrated Model of Trial Court Decision Making
Protesters on trial
Holding Steady on Shifting Sands
A Built-In Advantage
Which Governments Come Out Ahead
The Two Motifs of "Why the 'Haves' Come Out Ahead" and Its Heirs
A Classic at 25
Do the "Haves" Still Come Out Ahead? Resource Inequalities in Ideological Courts
Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System
Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models
Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System
Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices
The Political System
Party Capability Theory and Appellate Success in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1949–1992
Party Capability Theory as an Explanation for Intervention Behavior in the English Court of Appeal
Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals
Resource Inequalities and Litigation Outcomes in the Philippine Supreme Court
The Public Ordering of Private Relations Part Two
Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead
Do The "Haves" Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970
Ideology, Status, and The Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court
Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals Revisited
| Unique citing works | 55 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,04 |
| Citation span | 1999 - 2026 (28) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 55 |