1 / 17

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…. Party capability theory. The tall team usually win the basketball game Repeat player vs. one-shotter

conan-keith
Télécharger la présentation

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Party Capability Theory and Appellate Success in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1949-1992 PETER McCORMICK 報告人：黃適文 20100324

  2. Rousseau said…

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Analysis • The advantage of respondent : 60:40 • Classify petitioners into eight categories. • Divide government into: Crown, Federal government, Provincial government, Municipal government

  7. Analysis • Divide business into : Big business, Other business • Include union

  8. Analysis

  9. Net advantage • Independent of the relative frequency with each type of litigant appears as appellant or respondent. • Reduce the effect of intra-category litigation.

  10. Impact of advantage on success rates

  11. 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)

  12. Score and success rate

  13. Regression model The fit of the model is 0.7971

  14. 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

  15. Compare with the system in the US

  16. Compare with the British system

  17. Conclusion • The behavior of the Supreme Court of Canadasupportparty capability theory

More Related