The Two Motifs of “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead” and Its Heirs

Epp, Charles R.

doi:10.2307/3115161

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on repeat players has emphasized the capabilities and orientations of two ideal types of litigants: repeat players and one‐shotters (Galanter 1974; Albiston 1999; Epp 1999; Kritzer and Silbey 2003). These legal actors develop distinct orientations toward the use of the law.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning to Dispute: Repeat Participation, Expertise, and Reputation at the World Trade Organization

Conti

2010

Law soc. inq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This mixed‐method analysis examines the effects of repeat participation on disputing at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Differences between disputants in terms of their experience with WTO disputing processes affect the likelihood of a dispute transitioning to a panel review in distinct ways, depending upon the configuration of the parties. More experienced complainants tend to achieve settlements, while more experienced respondents tend to refuse conciliation. Strategies of experienced respondents are derived from the expertise generated from repeated direct participation and the normalcy of disputing for repeat players as well as the benefits accruing from a reputation for being unlikely to settle. Repeat players also seek to avoid disputes expected to produce unfavorable jurisprudence but do not actively try to create new case law through the selection of disputes. This research demonstrates a dynamic learning process in how parties use international legal forums and thus extends sociolegal scholarship beyond the nation‐state.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning to Dispute: Repeat Participation, Expertise, and Reputation at the World Trade Organization

Conti

2010

Law soc. inq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Black ([15], p. 97) argued, "deviant behavior by an individual against an organization is the most serious." Consistent with Black's [15] theory, variation in victim characteristics (i.e., size, sector, and access to internal social control) determines organizations' status and power as "haves," relative to individuals, and establishes legal advantages over other organizations [39].…”

mentioning

confidence: 84%

The effects of legal and extra-legal characteristics on organizational victim decision-making

Holtfreter

2008

Crime Law Soc Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A variety of factors influence decisions to mobilize formal social control. With few exceptions, studies considering the effects of legal (e.g., case specific) and extra legal (e.g., offender and victim characteristics) variables have concentrated on sentencing under criminal law, an outcome subject to sample selection bias given that the majority of cases never reach this stage. Analyses of earlier decision points (e.g., victim calls for service, police use of force, and arrest), have focused on street crime and single jurisdictions. A neglected research context is the organizational victim's response to employee fraud. Using a sample of 663 fraud cases, this study applies Black's (The behavior of law, San Diego, Academic, 1976) theory of law to victim organizations' decisions to mobilize formal social control. Results demonstrate that extralegal characteristics weigh heavily on decisions to initiate both criminal and civil outcomes. Specifically, offenders' education and age decreased the odds of criminal legal mobilization. Mobilization of criminal law was also more likely by government agencies. Implications for Black's theory and directions for further research are discussed.

show abstract

“…While the concept of leveling is not new (Haynie, 1994), existing research attributes it to lawyers instead of judges (Miller, Keith, and Holmes, 2015;Miller and Curry, 2022) and is unclear about whether it is driven by litigants' identities or claims (Epp, 1999). Distinguishing litigant-driven and claimdriven leveling matters because they imply different legitimation strategies, audiences, and effects.…”

Section: A Theory Of Judicial Leveling and Spotlightingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leveling and Spotlighting: How the European Court of Justice Favors the Weak to Promote its Legitimacy

Hermansen,

Pavone,

Boulaziz

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As private actors turn to international courts (ICs), we argue that judges can seize individual rights litigation to promote themselves as protectors of the weak. By leveling the odds for less resourceful individuals and spotlighting their rights claims, ICs can cultivate support networks in civil society. We verify this legitimation strategy by scrutinizing the first IC with private access: the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Often cast as a stealthy pro-business court, we show that ECJ judges instead publicized themselves as individual rights promoters: do they match words with deeds? Leveraging an original dataset, we find that the ECJ “levels,” favoring individuals’ rights claims compared to claims by businesses boasting larger, more experienced legal teams. The ECJ also “spotlights” support for individuals through press releases that lawyers amplify in law journals. Our findings challenge the view that ICs build legitimacy by stealth and the “haves” come out ahead in litigation.

show abstract

The Two Motifs of “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead” and Its Heirs

Cited by 10 publications

References 19 publications

Learning to Dispute: Repeat Participation, Expertise, and Reputation at the World Trade Organization

Learning to Dispute: Repeat Participation, Expertise, and Reputation at the World Trade Organization

The effects of legal and extra-legal characteristics on organizational victim decision-making

Leveling and Spotlighting: How the European Court of Justice Favors the Weak to Promote its Legitimacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About