Book contents
- Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the World
- Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the World
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- 1 Do Patent Law Suits Target Invalid Patents?
- 2 Platform Procedure
- 3 Speedy Adjudication in Hard Cases and Low Settlement Rates in Easy Cases
- 4 How Lower Courts Respond to a Change in a Legal Rule
- 5 Career Judge System and Court Decision Biases
- 6 Judges Avoid Ex Post but Not Ex Ante Inefficiency
- 7 When Winning Is Not Enough
- 8 The Evolution of Case Influence in Modern Consumer Standard Form Contracts
- 9 Judging Insurance Antidiscrimination Law
- 10 Are Judges Harsher with Repeat Offenders?
- 11 Does Efficiency Trump Legality?
- Index
- References
4 - How Lower Courts Respond to a Change in a Legal Rule
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 December 2019
Edited by
Book contents
- Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the World
- Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the World
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- 1 Do Patent Law Suits Target Invalid Patents?
- 2 Platform Procedure
- 3 Speedy Adjudication in Hard Cases and Low Settlement Rates in Easy Cases
- 4 How Lower Courts Respond to a Change in a Legal Rule
- 5 Career Judge System and Court Decision Biases
- 6 Judges Avoid Ex Post but Not Ex Ante Inefficiency
- 7 When Winning Is Not Enough
- 8 The Evolution of Case Influence in Modern Consumer Standard Form Contracts
- 9 Judging Insurance Antidiscrimination Law
- 10 Are Judges Harsher with Repeat Offenders?
- 11 Does Efficiency Trump Legality?
- Index
- References
Summary
We investigate how lower courts respond to a change in the legal rule by an appellate court. We create a dataset comprising 525 cases from the Tax Court of Canada over the period 1997 to 2017 that determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for tax purposes. We look at how this lower court responds to a 2006 decision by the Federal Court of Appeals introducing a new factor in a multi-factor test to be applied by the lower court. We find only limited evidence that this change in the legal rule has any impact upon the outcomes of lower court cases.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the WorldEmpirical Inquires, pp. 110 - 131Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Atiyah, Patrick S. 1985. The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, Richard R. 2001. Why the Law Still Can’t Tell an Employee When It Sees One and How It Ought to Stop Trying. Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law 22: 295–368.Google Scholar
Gennaioli, Nicola, and Shleifer, Andrei. 2007. The Evolution of Common Law. Journal of Political Economy 115: 43–68.Google Scholar
Gennaioli, Nicola, and Shleifer, Andrei. 2008. Judicial Fact Discretion. Journal of Legal Studies 37: 1–35.Google Scholar
Gilmore, Grant. 1974. The Death of Contract. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Goetz, Charles J., and Scott, Robert E.. 1981. Enforcing Promises: An Examination of the Basis of Contract. Yale Law Journal 89: 1261–322.Google Scholar
Harned, Karen R., Kryda, Georgine M., and Milito, Elizabeth A.. 2010. Creating a Workable Legal Standard for Defining an Independent Contractor. Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & Law 4: 93–117.Google Scholar
Jacobi, Tonja, and Tiller, Emerson H.. 2007. Legal Doctrine and Political Control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23: 326–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Pauline T. 2007. Lower Court Discretion. New York University Law Review 82: 283–442.Google Scholar
Niblett, Anthony. 2013. Tracking Inconsistent Judicial Behavior. International Review of Law & Economics 34: 9–20.Google Scholar
Niblett, Anthony, Posner, Richard A., and Shleifer, Andrei. 2010. The Evolution of a Legal Rule. Journal of Legal Studies 39: 325–49.Google Scholar
Peltason, Jack W. 1961. Fifty-Eight Lonely Men. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World Inc.Google Scholar
Ponzetto, Giacomo A. M. and Fernandez, Patricio O. 2008. Case Law versus Statute Law: An Evolutionary Comparison. Journal of Legal Studies 37: 370–430.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, Frank T., and McGough, Lucy S.. 1978. Let Them Be Judged: The Judicial Integration of the Deep South. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
Rubin, Paul H. 1977. Why Is the Common Law Efficient? Journal of Legal Studies 6: 51–63.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Alan, and Scott, Robert E.. 2003. Contract Theory and the Limits of Contract Law. Yale Law Journal 113: 541–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trebilcock, Michael J. 1993. The Limits of Freedom of Contract. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar