Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T01:25:49.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial creativity and judicial errors: an organizational perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2010

BARBARA LUPPI  and
FRANCESCO PARISI
BARBARA LUPPI*
Affiliation:
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Department of Economics and Center for Economic Research, Italy
FRANCESCO PARISI*
Affiliation:
Law School, University of Minnesota, USA and Department of Economics, University of Bologna, Spain
*
*Email: barbara.luppi@unimore.it.
**Email: parisi@umn.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The different role played by case law and the historical and conceptual differences between the doctrines of precedent in common law and civil law traditions are important determinants of judicial creativity. In this article, we consider a hybrid version of stare decisis, called by the French name of jurisprudence constante, adopted by mixed jurisdictions. Unlike stare decisis, which allows a single precedent to establish case law, the doctrine of jurisprudence constante links the recognition of a judge-made rule to the existence of a consecutive line of decisions affirming the same legal principle. We develop a model to consider the effects of this doctrine on the social costs arising from judicial error and uncertainty in case law. We further consider the effects of these alternative doctrines of precedent on judicial creativity and ideological bias in judge-made law.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 91 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © The JOIE Foundation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berman, Harold J. and Reid, Charles J. Jr. (1996), ‘The transformation of English legal science: from Hale to Blackstone’, Emory Law Journal, 45: 437–522.Google Scholar
Dainow, Joseph (1974), The Role of Judicial Decisions and Doctrine in Civil Law and Mixed Jurisdictions, Baton Rouge: LSU Press, pp. 133–164.Google Scholar
Dennis, James L. (1993), ‘The John Tucker, Jr. Lecture in Civil Law: interpretation and application of the civil code and the evaluation of judicial precedent’, Louisiana Law Review, 54: 1–17.Google Scholar
Depoorter, B. and Parisi, F. (2003), ‘Legal precedents and judicial discretion’, in Rowley, C. K. and Schneider, F. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Public Choice, Kluwer, pp. 343–347.Google Scholar
Evans, Jim (1987), ‘Change in the doctrine of precedent during the nineteenth century’, in Goldstein, L. (ed.), Precedent in Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 35–72.Google Scholar
Fon, V. and Parisi, F. (2003), ‘Litigation and the evolution of legal remedies: a dynamic model’, Public Choice, 116: 419–433.Google Scholar
Fon, V. and Parisi, F. (2006), ‘Judicial precedents in civil law systems: a dynamic analysis’, International Review of Law and Economics, 26: 519–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, E. and Wasserman, M. J. (1929), ‘The case method in Canada and the possibilities of its adaptation to the civil law’, Yale Law Journal, 39: 1–21.Google Scholar
Merryman, John H. (1969), The Civil Law Tradition. An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Western Europe and Latin America, 2nd edn, 1985.Google Scholar
Posner, R. A. (1994), ‘What do judges and justices maximize? (The same thing everybody else does)’, Supreme Court Economic Review, 3: 1–41.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. (2010), ‘From the new institutional economics to organization economics: with applications to corporate governance, government agencies, and legal institutions’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 6 (1): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zywicki, T. (2003), ‘The rise and fall of efficiency in the common law: a supply-side analysis’, Northwestern Law Review, 97: 1551–1634; reprinted in The Evolution of Efficient Common Law (Paul H. Rubin, ed., 2007).Google Scholar