Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T03:19:10.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selecting and ranking leading cases in Brazilian Supreme Court decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2023

Jackson José De Souza Open the ORCID record for Jackson José De Souza [Opens in a new window] ,
Marcelo Finger ,
Jorge Alberto A. de Araújo  and
Juliano Maranhão
Jackson José De Souza
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, e-mails: jackson@ime.usp.br, mfinger@ime.usp.br
Marcelo Finger
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, e-mails: jackson@ime.usp.br, mfinger@ime.usp.br
Jorge Alberto A. de Araújo
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Legal Theory, University of Sao Paulo Law School, São Paulo, Brazil, e-mails: jorge.alberto@ufma.br, julianomaranhao@usp.br
Juliano Maranhão
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Legal Theory, University of Sao Paulo Law School, São Paulo, Brazil, e-mails: jorge.alberto@ufma.br, julianomaranhao@usp.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This work studies quantitative measures for ranking judicial decisions by the Brazilian Supreme Court [Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF)] and selecting leading cases, which are understood as those with broadness of influence on different legal fields. The measures are based on a network built over decisions whose cases were finalized in the Brazilian Supreme Court between 01/2001 and 12/2019, which were obtained by crawling publicly available STF records. Three ranking measures are proposed; two are adaptations of the PageRank algorithm, and one adapts Kleinberg’s algorithm. Such measures are compared with respect to agreement on top 100 rankings; we also analyze each robustness measure based on self-agreement under perturbation.

We examine whether the resulting quantitative ranking is congenial to a qualitative intuition of what the legal community usually considers as relevant precedents. We also discuss some possible criteria of relevance in the seek for patterns that suggest how quantitative and qualitative measures would better align. The ranking of leading cases and relevant decisions improved after building decision networks without irrelevant appeals and decisions that overflow the court offers a starting point to discuss the role of STF in the Brazilian judicial system.

In our last work, both versions of PageRank and Kleinberg algorithms produced different rankings and all of them were robust with respect to 10% and 20%-perturbation levels, but none of them retrieved leading cases at the top of these rankings. Then, we took a further step in the studies of the STF decision network and we introduced better filtering of network nodes guided by legal expertise on the works of the Supreme Court. We also introduced more fine-grained perturbance levels to understand the impact of such filters in the STF decision network. We concluded that after filtering low-relevance decision types, the STF decision network is still robust under 10%-perturbation, but it presents higher degradation by increasing perturbation levels. The two versions of PageRank still produce different rankings. Kleinberg’s algorithm provides a different ranking, with many relevant criminal cases. Although we improved algorithms rankings filtering decisions from the network, which represents an important methodological step, there is still room for improvement. Given that relevant decisions are well ranked after filtering out a large amount of irrelevant decisions, the results set a starting point to discuss the role of STF in the Brazilian judicial system.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 38 , 2023 , e7
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Agnoloni, T. & Pagallo, U. 2015. The case law of the italian constitutional court, its power laws, and the Web of scholarly opinions. (Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 151–155. URL: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2746090.2746108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, R., Jeong, H. & Barabási, A.-L. 2000. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406(6794), 378–382. DOI 10.1038/35019019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Almeida, G., Nunes, J. L. & Chaves, L. 2016. Explicando o dissenso: Uma análise empírica do comportamento judicial do supremo tribunal federal e da suprema corte dos estados unidos (Explaining dissent. In An Empirical Analysis of Judicial Behaviour of the Brazilian Supreme Court and Supreme Court of the United States), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2580904, or 10.2139/ssrn.2580904.Google Scholar
Barabási, A.-L. & Pósfai, M. 2016. Network science. Cambridge.: Cambridge University Press, URL: Available at: http://barabasi.com/networksciencebook/.Google Scholar
Bommarito, M. J. II, Katz, D. M., Zelner, J. L. & Fowler, J. H. 2010. Distance measures for dynamic citation networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 389(19), 4201–4208. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437110004930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brin, S. & Page, L. 1998. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Comput Netw. ISDN Syst 30(1-7), 107–117. DOI 10.1016/S0169-7552(98)00110-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R. & Newman, M. E. J. 2009. Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review 51(4), 661–703. DOI 10.1137%2F070710111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, C. 2011. Courtwatchers: Eyewitness Accounts in Supreme Court History. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
de Souza, J. J. & Finger, M. 2020. Robust ranking of brazilian supreme court decisions. In Intelligent Systems. BRACIS 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12319, Cerri, R., & Prati, R. C., (eds). Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 581–594. URL: DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-61377-8_40.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press, 45–86, chapter 2.Google Scholar
Falcão, J., Cerdeira, P. & Arguelhes, D. 2013. I relatório do supremo em números-o múltiplo supremo. Revista de Direito Administrativo 262, 399–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falcão, J., Hartmann, I. A. & Chaves, V. P. 2014. III relatório supremo em números: O supremo e o tempo. Available at: URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10438/12055.Google Scholar
Federal, Supremo Tribunal 2022. Pesquisa de jurisprudência - STF. Accessed 17-August-2022. Available at: URL: https://jurisprudencia.stf.jus.br/pages/search.Google Scholar
Fowler, J. H. & Jeon, S. 2008. The authority of supreme court precedent. Social Networks 30(1), 16–30. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378873307000378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, E. 2020. No one likes amy coney barretts abortion answer. The Atlantic, 2020-10-13. URL: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-roe-v-wade/616702/.Google Scholar
Hagberg, A. A., Schult, D. A. & Swart, P. J. 2008. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using networkx. Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference, Pasadena, CA USA, pp. 11–15, URL: http://conference.scipy.org/proceedings/SciPy2008/paper_2/.Google Scholar
Hartmann, I. A., dos Santos Junior, F. A. C., Silva, F. A., Appel, O., et al. 2017. Pedidos de vista no tribunal superior eleitoral. REI - Revista Estudos Institucionais 3(2), 1074–1111. DOI 10.21783/rei.v3i2.180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irons, P. 2002. Jim Crow’s Children: The Broken Promise of the Brown Decision. Penguin.Google Scholar
Irons, P. 2006. A People’s History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution. Revised ed. Penguin.Google Scholar
Klaus, A., Yu, S. & Plenz, D. 2011. Statistical analyses support power law distributions found in neuronal avalanches. PLOS ONE 6(5), 1–12. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0019779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleinberg, J. M. 1999. Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 46(5), 604–632. DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/324133.324140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiuzzo, L. 2018. Most-cited u.s. supreme court cases in heinonline: Part iii. Accessed on March 29 2021. Available at: https://home.heinonline.org/blog/2018/09/most-cited-u-s-supreme-court-cases-in-heinonline-part-iii/.Google Scholar
Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R. & Winograd, T. 1999. The pageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the Web. Technical Report 1999-66. Available at: http://ilpubs.stanford.edu. Stanford InfoLab. Previous number = SIDL-WP-1999-0120.Google Scholar
Patterson, J. T. 2004. Legacies and lessons. In The Landmark School Desegregation Case in Retrospect, Supreme Court Historical Society, Cushman, C., Urofsky, M. I., eds, Black, hite, W., & rown, B., 297–318.Google Scholar
Rehnquist, W. H. 2002. The Supreme Court. Vintage.Google Scholar
Schneider, C. M., Moreira, A. A., Andrade, J. S., Havlin, S. & Herrmann, H. J. 2011, Mitigation of malicious Attacks on Networks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(10), 3838–3841. URL: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1009440108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedgewick, R. & Wayne, K. 2011. Algorithms. 4th ed. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Steinman, A. N. 2016. The rise and fall of plausibility pleading? Vanderbilt Law Review 69(2753142), 333–401. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2753142.Google Scholar
van Opijnen, M. 2012. Citation analysis and beyond: In search of indicators measuring case law importance. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2012, 250, Schäfer, B., (eds). IOS Press BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 95–104. DOI 10.3233/978-1-61499-167-0-95.Google Scholar
Vojvodic, A.d M. 2012. Precedentes e argumentação no supremo tribunal federal: Entre a vinculação ao passado e a sinalização para o futuro, URL: PhD thesis. Universidade de São Paulo Law School, https://teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/2/2134/tde-27092012-094000/pt-br.php.Google Scholar
Winkels, R., de Ruyter, J. & Kroese, H. 2011. Determining authority of dutch case law. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2011: The Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference, 235, Atkinson, K., (eds). University of Vienna, Austria, 103–112. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press. DOI 10.3233/978-1-60750-981-3-103. URL: 2011-12.Google Scholar