Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:06:02.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - The Evolution of Case Influence in Modern Consumer Standard Form Contracts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2019

By
Florencia Marotta-Wurgler
Edited by
Yun-chien Chang
Yun-chien Chang
Affiliation:
Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan
Get access

Summary

This chapter explores the evolution of judicial influence using a hand-collected data set of all cases until 2016 that address the enforceability of clickwrap, shrinkwrap, and browsewrap contracts as well as their out-of-state influence over time. A foundational theory conceptualizes precedent as an investment that yields valuable information to subsequent courts that depreciates over time, as new circumstances and innovations make such precedent less helpful for later courts. Empirical research on judicial citations has found a “superstar” or “tournament winner” effect, whereby a handful of cases garner almost all citations for a given question. How do tournament winners fare over time? I find that the citation universe is indeed dominated by “tournament winners.” These cases, which tend to be decided by circuit court judges, influence other courts from the date they are decided. Instead of experiencing depreciation, however, I find that their influence continues to grow, even over cases that are hierarchically more important. In addition, cases tend to converge towards a particular rule or standard over time. The results enrich our understanding of the evolution of judicial influence and help inform theories of the evolution of precedent and the common law.

Keywords

Contract lawCivil ProcedureStandard form ContractsCourtsCommon LawConsumer Contracts
Type
Chapter
Information
Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the World
Empirical Inquires
 , pp. 204 - 222
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

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

Bar-Gill, Oren, Ben-Shahar, Omri, and Marotta-Wurgler, Florencia. 2017. Searching for the Common Law: An Empirical Approach to the Restatement of Consumer Contracts. University of Chicago Law Review 84: 7–35.Google Scholar
Bern, Roger C. 2004. “Terms Later” Contracting: Bad Economics, Bad Morals, and a Bad Idea for a Uniform Law, Judge Easterbrook Notwithstanding. Journal of Law and Policy 12: 641–796.Google Scholar
Braucher, Jean. 2001. UCITA and the Concept of Assent. PLI/PAT 673: 175–86.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A. 1985. The Transmission of Legal Precedent: A Study of State Supreme Courts. American Political Science Review 79: 178–94.Google Scholar
Cardozo, Benjamin N. 1921. The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Choi, Stephen J., and Gulati, G. Mitu. 2004a. A Tournament of Judges? California Law Review 92: 299–322.Google Scholar
Choi, Stephen J., and Gulati, G. Mitu. 2004b. Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: An Empirical Ranking of Judge Performance. Southern California Law Review 78: 23–118.Google Scholar
Choi, Stephen J., and Gulati, G. Mitu. 2005. Mr. Justice Posner? Unpacking the Statistics. New York University Annual Survey of American Law 61: 19–43.Google Scholar
Choi, Stephen J., Gulati, G. Mitu, and Posner, Eric A., 2009. Judicial Evaluations and Information Forcing: Ranking State High Courts and Their Judges. Duke Law Journal 58: 1313–81.Google Scholar
Cooter, Robert, Kornhauser, Lewis, and Lane, David. 1979. Liability Rules, Limited Information, and the Role of Precedent. Bell Journal of Economics 10: 366–73.Google Scholar
Daughety, Andrew F., and Reinganum, Jennifer F.. 1999. Stampede to Judgment: Persuasive Influence and Herding Behavior by Courts. American Law and Economics Review 1: 158–89.Google Scholar
Farber, Daniel A. 2005. Supreme Court Selection and Measures of Past Judicial Performance. Florida State University Law Review 32: 1175–96.Google Scholar
Gennaioli, Nicola, and Shleifer, Andrei. 2007. The Evolution of Common Law. Journal of Political Economy 115: 43–68.Google Scholar
Gillette, Clayton P. 1998. Lock-In Effects in Law and Norms. Boston University Law Review 78: 813–42.Google Scholar
Gulati, Mitu, and Sanchez, Veronica. 2002. Giants in a World of Pygmies? Testing the Superstar Hypothesis with Judicial Opinions in Casebooks. Iowa Law Review 87: 1141–212.Google Scholar
Hadfield, Gillian. 1992. Bias in the Evolution of Legal Rules. Georgetown Law Journal 80: 583–616.Google Scholar
Hathaway, Oona. 2001. Path Dependence in the Law: The Course and Pattern of Legal Change in a Common Law System. Iowa Law Review 86: 101–65.Google Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell. 1897. The Path of the Law. Harvard Law Review 10: 457–78.Google Scholar
Issacharoff, Samuel, and Marotta-Wurgler, Florencia. 2019. The Hollowed Out Common Law. 67 UCLA Law Review (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis A. 1996. Notes on the Logic of Legal Change. Pp. 169–83 in Social Rules: Origin; Character; Logic; Change, edited by Braybrooke, David. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Kuran, Timur and Sunstein, Cass. 1999. Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation. Stanford Law Review 51: 683–768.Google Scholar
Landes, William M., Lessig, Lawrence, and Solimine, Michael E. 1998. Judicial Influence: A Citation Analysis of Federal Courts of Appeal Judges. Journal of Legal Studies 27: 271.Google Scholar
Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A.. 1976. Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Journal of Law and Economics 19(2): 249–307.Google Scholar
Niblett, Anthony, Posner, Richard A, and Shleifer, Andrei. 2010. The Evolution of a Legal Rule. Journal of Legal Studies 39: 325–58.Google Scholar
Petit, Christopher L. 1998. The Problem with “Money Now, Terms Later”: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg and the Enforceability of “Shrinkwrap” Software Licenses. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 31: 325–52.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1973. Economic Analysis of Law. New York: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Priest, George L. 1977. The Common Law Process and the Selection of Efficient Rules. Journal of Legal Studies 6: 65–82.Google Scholar
Priest, George L., and Klein, Benjamin. 1984. The Selection of Disputes for Litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 13: 1–55.Google Scholar
Rubin, Paul. 1977. Why Is the Common Law Efficient? Journal of Legal Studies 6: 51–63.Google Scholar
Shavell, Steven. 1996. Any Frequency of Plaintiff Victory at Trial Is Possible. Journal of Legal Studies 25: 493–501.Google Scholar
Stone, Julius. 1985. Precedent and Law: Dynamics of Common Law Growth. Sydney: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Talley, Eric L. 1999. Precedential Cascades: A Critical Appraisal. Southern California Law Review 73: 87–138.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×