The Diffusion of Doctrinal Innovations in Tort Law

Abstract

142-45 (1977) (finding a significant increase in the number and proportion (relative to the courts' overall docket) of tort cases heard by state supreme courts from the 1870-1900 period to the 1940-1970 period). 10. See infra Chart I. 11. See infra Chart I. This chart and all other line charts and tables within this Article Computing: Consumers, Privacy Preferences, and Market Efficiency, 70 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 341 (2013) (addressing the legal consequences, in tort law and otherwise, of burgeoning reliance on "cloud" computing and data storage).

Revisiting the Business of State Supreme Courts in the 21st Century

“…Research suggests recent innovations have also impacted state court workloads. Among these innovations are tort reform enactments (Daniels & Martin 2015; Graham 2015), improvements in case management (Hanson & Rottman 1999), increased use of summary judgement at the trial phase (Burbank 2004; Galanter & Frozena 2014), and 20th century procedural reforms (Yeazell 2004). We expect that many of the forces affecting contemporary state courts, including reform efforts, have shaped the agendas and policy priorities of state supreme courts.…”

Diffusion of Legal Innovations: The Case of Israeli Class Actions

“…Some papers have used the terminology of diffusion to address legal transplants from one legal system to another (Twining 2005(Twining , 2006Shur-Ofry et al 2016). Similarly, the diffusion paradigm has been used in explaining patterns of adopting legal reforms among U.S. states (Walker 1969;Gray 1973) and cities (Lozner 2004); the migration of corporate law norms from one U.S. state to another (Romano 2006) and across different legal traditions (Spamann 2009); the diffusion of constitutional rights among countries (Goderis & Versteeg 2014); the diffusion of consumer protection legislation (Ford 1978); and the diffusion of doctrinal innovations in tort law or expert evidence among different state courts (Kritzer & Beckstrom 2007;Graham 2015). However, this research typically takes the legislating state or country as the primary decisionmaker.…”

“…In addition, we also seek to make a contribution to diffusion research as applied to the law. Legal scholarship has been chiefly interested in the diffusion of legal rules from one legal system to another-for example, transplants of institutions between countries, states and courts (Twining 2004(Twining -2006Romano 2006;Westbrook 2006;Goderis & Versteeg 2014;Graham 2015). Our focus is on the critical role of legal professionals.…”

Diffusion of Legal Innovations: The Case of Israeli Class Actions

“…Some papers have used the terminology of diffusion to address legal transplants from one legal system to another (Twining 2005, Twining 2006, Shur-Ofry, Fibich et al 2016. Similarly, the diffusion paradigm has been used in explaining: patterns of adopting legal reforms among U.S. states (Walker 1969, Gray 1973) and cities (Lozner 2004); the migration of corporate law norms from one U.S. state to another (Romano 2006) and in different legal traditions (Spamann 2009); the diffusion of constitutional rights among countries (Goderis and Versteeg 2014); the diffusion of consumer protection legislation (Ford 1978) and the diffusion of doctrinal innovations in tort law among different state courts (Graham 2015). However, this research typically takes the legislating state or country as the primary decision-maker.…”

“…Recent legal scholarship has studied the diffusion of legal rules from one legal system to another -for example, transplants of institutions between countries, states and courts (Twining 2004, Twining 2005, Romano 2006, Twining 2006, Westbrook 2006, Goderis and Versteeg 2014, Graham 2015. In this paper, we use diffusion models to predict how private attorneys, i.e.…”