I thank Jennifer Arlen, Omri Ben-Shahar, Lisa Bernstein, Steven Choi, Mary Dudziak, Theodore Eisenberg, Thomas Gallanis, Nuno Garoupa, Joshua Getzler, Tom Griffith, Alon Harel, Bruce Hay, R. H. Helmholz, Keith Hylton, Greg Keating, Kevin Kordana, Timur Kuran, Tom Lyon, Ed McCaffery, Evan Osborne, Eric Posner, Richard Posner, Richard Ross, Mark Ramseyer, Yoram Shachar, Robert Sitkoff, Kathy Spier, Matt Spitzer, Nomi Stolzenberg, Eric Talley, and participants in the Yale Law Economics and Organization Workshop, Harvard Olin Conference on the Economics of Courts, USC Law School Faculty Workshop, Interdisciplinary Center (Herzliya) Faculty Workshop, Caltech Social Science History Seminar, Georgetown Olin Workshop, Tel Aviv Law and Economics Workshop, Hebrew University Law and Economics Workshop, American Society for Legal History 2000 Annual Meeting, 15th British Legal History Conference, 2001 Medieval Academy of America Annual Meeting, American Law and Economics Association 2000 Annual Meeting, and 2011 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies for their helpful comments and encouragement. I also thank Fred Boehmke for his assistance with the simulations in the Online Appendix. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (Law and Social Science Program, Grant SBR-9412044), the Social Science Research Council, a Fulbright Fellowship, and four USC Law School Summer Research grants.
The Selection of 13th-Century Disputes for Litigation
Article first published online: 7 MAY 2012
Copyright © 2012 Cornell Law School and Wiley Subscription Services, Inc.
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
Volume 9, Issue 2, pages 320–346, June 2012
How to Cite
Klerman, D. (2012), The Selection of 13th-Century Disputes for Litigation. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9: 320–346. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2012.01255.x
- Issue published online: 7 MAY 2012
- Article first published online: 7 MAY 2012
Priest and Klein's seminal 1984 article argued that litigated cases differ systematically and predictably from settled cases. This article tests the Priest-Klein selection model using a data set of 13th-century English cases. These cases are especially informative because juries rendered verdicts even in settled cases, so one can directly compare verdicts in settled and litigated cases. The results are consistent with the predictions of the Priest-Klein article, as well as with the asymmetric-information selection models developed by Hylton and Shavell.