A central feature of the litigation process that affects case outcomes is the selection of
cases for litigation. In this study, we present a theoretical framework for understanding the
operation of this suit selection process and its relationship to the underlying distribution
of potential claims and claimants. We implement the model empirically by assuming that
individuals vary more in their litigiousness (inverse costs of litigation) than do corporations.
This assumption, coupled with the case selection process we present, yields clear predictions
on trial rates as a function of whether the plaintiff and defendant were individuals or
corporations. The model also yields a prediction on the plaintiff ’s win rate in lawsuits as
a function of the plaintiff ’s identity. Our empirical analysis, using data on over 200,000
federal civil litigations, yields results that are generally consistent with the theory. Lawsuits
where the plaintiff is an individual are found to have higher trial rates and lower plaintiff
win rates.
Theodore Eisenberg
We develop a model of the plaintiff’s decision to file a law suit that has
implications for how differences between the federal government and private litigants and
litigation translate into differences in trial rates and plaintiff win rates at trial. Our case
selection model generates a set of predictions for relative trial rates and plaintiff win rates
depending on the type of case and whether the government is defendant or plaintiff. In
order to test the model, we use data on about 350,000 cases filed in federal district court
between 1979 and 1997 in the areas of personal injury and job discrimination where the
federal government and private parties work under roughly similar legal rules. We find
broad support for the predictions of the model.
Multiple studies find that plaintiffs who lose at trial and subsequently appeal are less successful on appeal than are losing defendants who appeal. The studies attribute this to a perception by appellate judges that trial courts are biased in favor of plaintiffs. However, at least two alternative explanations exist. First, losing plaintiffs may appeal at higher rates independent of the potential merits. Second, if plaintiffs tend to pursue to trial lawsuits where they should win on the merits less than half the time, then errors at trial will be more likely to adversely affect defendants. This study revisits the analysis of the appellate process with a theoretical model that has implications not only for appellate outcomes but for the rate of appeal. By tying together win rates at trial, appeals rates, and success rates on appeal, the model can distinguish the competing explanations for differential appellate success rates. We estimate this model using matched data on Federal District Court trials and appeals to the U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. We provide evidence that the lower plaintiff success rate on appeal is due to plaintiffs' pursuing lawsuits where they should win on the merits (which we define to be an outcome that will not be reversed or remanded on appeal) less than half the time. We also provide evidence against explaining asymmetric success on appeal being attributable to trial courts favoring plaintiffs and evidence against juries being favorable to plaintiffs compared to judges.