IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v1y2004i3p659-688.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Appeal Rates and Outcomes in Tried and Nontried Cases: Further Exploration of Anti‐Plaintiff Appellate Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Theodore Eisenberg

Abstract

Federal data sets covering district court and appellate court civil cases for cases terminating in fiscal years 1988 through 2000 are analyzed. Appeals are filed in 10.9 percent of filed cases, and 21.0 percent of cases if one limits the sample to cases with a definitive judgment for plaintiff or defendant. The appeal rate is 39.6 percent in tried cases compared to 10.0 percent of nontried cases. For cases with definitive judgments, the appeal filing rate is 19.0 percent in nontried cases and 40.9 percent in tried cases. Tried cases with definitive judgments are appealed to a conclusion on the merits in 22.7 percent of concluded trials compared to 10.2 percent of concluded nontried cases. Appellate courts affirm and reverse at different rates appeals from judgments for plaintiffs and defendants. Defendants achieve reversal of adverse trial court judgments in about 10 percent of filed cases and suffer affirmance in about 15 percent of such cases. Plaintiffs achieve reversal in about 4 percent of adverse trial court judgments and suffer affirmance in about 16 percent of such cases. Asymmetrical reversal rates are shown to be in part possibly attributable to different trial‐win rates. But the data suggest that an appellate court effect exists, independent of trial‐win rates and appeal rates, that depresses plaintiff success on appeal in employment discrimination cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Theodore Eisenberg, 2004. "Appeal Rates and Outcomes in Tried and Nontried Cases: Further Exploration of Anti‐Plaintiff Appellate Outcomes," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(3), pages 659-688, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:1:y:2004:i:3:p:659-688
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2004.00019.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2004.00019.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2004.00019.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Merlone, Ugo & Lupano, Matteo, 2022. "Third party funding: The minimum claim value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(2), pages 738-747.
    2. Thomas H. Cohen, 2008. "General Civil Jury Trial Litigation in State and Federal Courts: A Statistical Portrait," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 593-617, September.
    3. Elliott Ash & Daniel L. Chen & Arianna Ornaghi, 2024. "Gender Attitudes in the Judiciary: Evidence from US Circuit Courts," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 314-350, January.
    4. Álvaro Bustos, 2020. "How Does Court Stability Affect Legal Stability?," Documentos de Trabajo 535, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:1:y:2004:i:3:p:659-688. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.