dissertation: Placing Federal District Courts in the Judicial Hierarchy
Viewed
as the sum of its three essays, this dissertation project seeks
to remedy this deficit and unearth an unprecedented degree of evidence
on the role and place of federal district courts in the judicial
hierarchy. These essays are:
(1) Integrating Process, Policy, and Outcomes in Judicial Studies
Within federal
courts, litigants and judges are well-positioned to influence the
development and outcome of cases in a variety of ways. However,
our research tends to ignore the dynamic roles that these actors take
and the effect that this has on the litigation process. To help
rectify this, I examine the impact that judges and litigants have on
the methods of termination and who wins in cases in federal trial
courts. The findings from this empirical analysis of newly
collected data spanning 25 district courts and seven years reveal that
both litigant and judge-specific factors present in district court
cases have a substantial effect. The presence and size of these
results have important implications for the study of judicial processes
and actors and political institutions more generally. A
draft of this
essay is available here
(.pdf).
(2) The Impact of Courts of Appeals on Substantive and Procedural Success in the Federal District Courts
Utilizing
an original database of cases terminated in 29 federal district courts
from 2000 to 2004,
I assess the impact that courts of appeals have on district court
decision making after a case is appealed to the circuit court and then
returned to the district court on remand. I find that appellate
courts do impact district courts, both in terms of the parties that win
and the disposition methods that take place. In particular, the
specificity of appellate court directions given to district
courts are an important determinant of impact, as is the appellate
court decision to publish the opinion remanding the case to the
district court. These findings have vast implications, including for
hierarchical control in the judiciary, appellate court bargaining, and
perceptions of judicial legitimacy.
A
draft of this paper is available
here
(.pdf).
(3) Quantifying Appeals
(3) Quantifying Appeals
Within
the judicial
system, litigants, through their power to decide
whether to appeal,
hold the key to shaping the institutional agenda. As theory explains, the choice to mobilize
one’s case for appeal can be explained by strategic, political, and procedural reasons. After
detailing these theories, I turn to an empirical exploration of them in the judicial system.
Using a newly collected dataset of federal district court civil cases decided between 2000 and
2004, the results are rather revealing, indicating that strategy and procedural fairness are
both important considerations in the decision of a litigant to appeal.
hold the key to shaping the institutional agenda. As theory explains, the choice to mobilize
one’s case for appeal can be explained by strategic, political, and procedural reasons. After
detailing these theories, I turn to an empirical exploration of them in the judicial system.
Using a newly collected dataset of federal district court civil cases decided between 2000 and
2004, the results are rather revealing, indicating that strategy and procedural fairness are
both important considerations in the decision of a litigant to appeal.
![[Boyd photo]](../../CB_Website.JPG)