Party capability theory and appellate success in the supreme court of canada 1949 1992
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 17

Party Capability Theory and Appellate Success in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1949-1992 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 63 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Party Capability Theory and Appellate Success in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1949-1992. PETER McCORMICK 報告人:黃適文. 20100324. Rousseau said…. Party capability theory. The tall team usually win the basketball game Repeat player vs. one-shotter

Download Presentation

Party Capability Theory and Appellate Success in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1949-1992

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Party capability theory and appellate success in the supreme court of canada 1949 1992

Party Capability Theory and Appellate Success in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1949-1992

PETER McCORMICK

報告人:黃適文

20100324


Rousseau said

Rousseau said…


Party capability theory

Party capability theory

  • The tall team usually win the basketball game

  • Repeat player vs. one-shotter

  • The judges are not drawn from a statistically random group


The goal of this paper

The goal of this paper

  • Can we apply party capability theory to Canadian circumstance.

  • Or, is the rational actor hypothesis exist?

  • Compare the results with the results of US and British juridical system.


Party capability theory and appellate success in the supreme court of canada 1949 1992

Data

  • 3993 reported decisions of the Supreme Court between 1949, and 1992.

  • Treating a 43-year range of cases as a single block.

  • Counting each case as one.


Analysis

Analysis

  • The advantage of respondent : 60:40

  • Classify petitioners into eight categories.

  • Divide government into: Crown, Federal government, Provincial government, Municipal government


Analysis1

Analysis

  • Divide business into : Big business, Other business

  • Include union


Analysis2

Analysis


Net advantage

Net advantage

  • Independent of the relative frequency with each type of litigant appears as appellant or respondent.

  • Reduce the effect of intra-category litigation.


Impact of advantage on success rates

Impact of advantage on success rates


Index by advantage score

Index by advantage score

  • Give each 5 per cent of advantage a score 1

  • Ex: crown +5, individuals -2 …

  • The score vary from +7(crown vs. individuals) to -7(individuals vs. crown)


Score and success rate

Score and success rate


Regression model

Regression model

The fit of the model is 0.7971


Revision of respondent advantage

Revision of respondent advantage

  • There are more appeals by appellants who are disadvantaged relative to their respondents

  • Average Supreme court appellant has an advantage differential of -1.2 relative to the respondent

  • The respondent advantage should be revise to 55:45


Compare with the system in the us

Compare with the system in the US


Compare with the british system

Compare with the British system


Conclusion

Conclusion

  • The behavior of the Supreme Court of Canadasupportparty capability theory


  • Login