Judicial Demeanor: Oral Argument in the High Court of Australia

Tutton, Jordan; Mack, Kathy; Anleu, Sharyn Roach

doi:10.1080/0098261x.2018.1463185

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 Beyond gender, interruptions at Australian oral argument have not been quantitatively examined. There are qualitative studies of oral argument in the High Court of Australia (Oakley and Opeskin 2016;Tutton et al 2018) as well as a quantitative study examining attorney gender and litigation success rate (Smyth and Mishra 2014).…”

Section: Institutional Design and Gender Interruptive Expectations At...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Institutional Design and the Predictability of Judicial Interruptions at Oral Argument

Jacobi,

Leslie,

Robinson

2024

J. law courts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Examining oral argument in the Australian High Court and comparing to the U.S. Supreme Court, this article shows that institutional design drives judicial interruptive behavior. Many of the same individual- and case-level factors predict oral argument behavior. Notably, despite orthodoxy of the High Court as “apolitical,” ideology strongly predicts interruptions, just as in the United States. Yet, important divergent institutional design features between the two apex courts translate into meaningful behavioral differences, with the greater power of the Chief Justice resulting in differences in interruptions. Finally, gender effects are lower and only identifiable with new methodological techniques we develop and apply.

show abstract

Section: Institutional Design and Gender Interruptive Expectations At...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note this effect holds during the reign of a Coalition appointed Chief Justice; we discuss the effect during the reign of an ALP appointed Chief Justice below. We use the ideology scores of Justice Kirby at 0.85, the most liberal Justice, and Justice Callinan at 0.06, the most conservative Justice (seeOakley and Opeskin 2016;Tutton et al 2018). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%