IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/avv/wpaper/2017-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who Actually Benefits from Changes in Legal Standards? Evidence from Water Disputes in 19th Century California?

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Kanazawa

    (Carleton College)

  • Mark T. Kanazawa

Abstract

This paper attempts to answer a fundamental question about the effect of a change in a legal standard on the parties to a dispute: How do we know who is benefited by a change in a legal standard? The answer to this question may seem obvious, particularly if you state it concretely: Who will benefit from a change in a legal standard that is more likely to find drivers at fault in automobile-pedestrian collisions? 1 Surely the answer is pedestrians. Stated more generally, how do we know that a rule change that seems to benefit a class of parties to a dispute actually does?

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Kanazawa & Mark T. Kanazawa, 2017. "Who Actually Benefits from Changes in Legal Standards? Evidence from Water Disputes in 19th Century California?," Working Papers 2017-03, Carleton College, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:avv:wpaper:2017-03
    Note: In Copyright
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://digitalcommons.carleton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=econ_repec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lucian Arye Bebchuk, 1984. "Litigation and Settlement under Imperfect Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(3), pages 404-415, Autumn.
    2. Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 1067-1097, September.
    3. Amy Farmer & Paul Pecorino, 2010. "Pretrial Bargaining with Asymmetric Information: Unilateral versus Bilateral Payoff Relevance," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 77(2), pages 369-384, October.
    4. Anderson, Terry L & Hill, Peter J, 1975. "The Evolution of Property Rights: A Study of the American West," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(1), pages 163-179, April.
    5. Amy Farmer & Paul Pecorino, 2010. "Pretrial Bargaining with Asymmetric Information: Unilateral versus Bilateral Payoff Relevance," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 77(2), pages 369-384, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cary Deck & Paul Pecorino & Michael Solomon, 2024. "Litigation with negative expected value suits: An experimental analysis," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 244-278, June.
    2. Schankerman, Mark & Lanjouw, Jean, 2001. "Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 3093, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Carsten Hefeker & Michael Neugart, 2016. "Policy deviations, uncertainty, and the European Court of Justice," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 547-567, December.
    4. Lewis, Tracy R & Poitevin, Michel, 1997. "Disclosure of Information in Regulatory Proceedings," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 50-73, April.
    5. Metin Cosgel & Thomas J. Miceli & Emre Özer, 2023. "Resolving Lawsuits with a Decisive Oath: An Economic Analysis," Working papers 2023-03, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics, revised Sep 2024.
    6. Peter Van Wijck & Ben Van Velthoven, 2000. "An Economic Analysis of the American and the Continental Rule for Allocating Legal Costs," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 115-125, March.
    7. Pao-Li Chang, 2002. "The Evolution and Utilization of the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism," Working Papers 475, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
    8. Hyde, Charles E. & Williams, Philip L., 2002. "Necessary costs and expenditure incentives under the English rule," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 133-152, August.
    9. Santolino, Miguel, 2010. "Determinants of the decision to appeal against motor bodily injury judgements made by Spanish trial courts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 37-45, March.
    10. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 1997. "Stylized Facts of Patent Litigation: Value, Scope and Ownership," NBER Working Papers 6297, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Juwon Kwak, 2013. "Merger settlement as a screening device," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 523-540, December.
    12. Hong Luo & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2017. "Copyright Enforcement: Evidence from Two Field Experiments," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 499-528, June.
    13. Dari-Mattiacci, Giuseppe & Saraceno, Margherita, 2020. "Fee shifting and accuracy in adjudication," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    14. Shavell, Steven, 1993. "Suit versus Settlement when Parties Seek Nonmonetary Judgments," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-13, January.
    15. David Card & Brian P. McCall, 2009. "When to Start a Fight and When to Fight Back: Liability Disputes in the Workers' Compensation System," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(2), pages 149-178, April.
    16. Baptiste Massenot & Maria Maraki & Christian Thoeni, 2016. "Legal compliance and litigation spending under the English and American rule: Experimental evidence," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 16.19, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    17. Luca Anderlini & Leonardo Felli & Giovanni Immordino, 2019. "Costly Pretrial Agreements," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(1), pages 159-188.
    18. Echazu, Luciana & Garoupa, Nuno, 2012. "Why not adopt a loser-pays-all rule in criminal litigation?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 233-241.
    19. Jean Lanjouw & Josh Lerner, 1998. "The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Survey of the Empirical Literature," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 49-50, pages 223-246.
    20. Maria Antonelli & Veronica Grembi, 2013. "A microeconomic model of the demand of civil justice: is one institutional context better than another?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 295-318, October.

    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:avv:wpaper:2017-03. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sara Nielsen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edcarus.html .

    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.