Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics

Editor-in-Chief: Schipper, Burkhard

Ed. by Fong, Yuk-fai / Peeters, Ronald / Puzzello , Daniela / Rivas, Javier / Wenzelburger, Jan


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.173
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.248

CiteScore 2018: 0.24

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.163
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.186

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2018: 0.08

Online
ISSN
1935-1704
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Standards of Proof and Civil Litigation: A Game-Theoretic Analysis

Alice Guerra / Barbara Luppi / Francesco Parisi
  • Department of EconomicsUniversity of Minnesota, Minnesota, USA, School of Law and University of Bologna, BolognaItaly
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-05-16 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejte-2017-0005

Abstract

In litigation models, the parties’ probability to succeed in a lawsuit hinge upon the merits of the parties’ claims and their litigation efforts. In this paper we extend this framework to consider an important procedural aspect of the legal system: the standard of proof. We recast the conventional litigation model to consider how alternative standards of proof affect litigation choices. We analyze the interrelation between different standards of proof, the effectiveness of the parties’ efforts, and the merits of the case. We study how these factors jointly affect the parties’ litigation expenditures, the selection of cases brought to the courts, pretrial bargain solutions and preemptive strategies. Our results show that standards of proof are not only instrumental to balancing the competing goals of access to justice and judicial truth-finding, but they also play a critical role in affecting parties’ litigation investments and settlement choices, and in sorting the mix of cases that will actually be filed and defended in courts. The understanding of the sorting effect of standards of proof sheds light on their role as a policy instrument in civil litigation.

Keywords: litigation; standard of proof; litigation contest functions

JEL Classification: C72; D72; D8; K10; K41

References

  • Brook, J. 1982. “Inevitable Errors: The Preponderance of the Evidence Standard in Civil Litigation.” Tulsa Law Journal 18: 79.Google Scholar

  • Clermont, K. M. 2004. “Standards of Proof in Japan and the United States.” Cornell International Law Journal 37: 263.Google Scholar

  • Clermont, K. M. 2008. “Standards of Proof Revisited.” Vermont Law Review 33: 469.Google Scholar

  • Clermont, K. M., and Sherwin E.. 2002. “A Comparative View of Standards of Proof.” American Journal of Comparative Law 243–275..Google Scholar

  • Congleton, R. D., and Hillman A.. 2015. A Companion to Rent Seeking: Theory and Practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

  • Congleton, R. D., Hillman A. L., and Konrad K. A.. 1980. “Forty Years of Research on Rent Seeking: An Overview.” In 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking, Volume 1: Theory of Rent Seeking, edited by Congleton R. D., Hillman A. L., and Konrad K. A.. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Congleton, R. D., Hillman A. L., and Konrad K. A.. 2008a. 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking, Volume 1: Theory of Rent Seeking. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Congleton, R. D., Hillman A. L., and Konrad K. A.. 2008b. 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking, Volume 2: Rent Seeking in Practice. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Cooter, R., and Emons W.. 2003. “Truth-Revealing Mechanisms for Courts.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE 159 (2): 259–279.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cullison, A. D. 1969. “Probability Analysis of Judicial Fact-finding: A Preliminary Outline of the Subjective Approach. "University of Toledo Law Review 1: 538.Google Scholar

  • Dari-Mattiacci, G., Langlais E., Lovat B., and Parisi F.. 2015. “Asymmetries in Rent Seeking.” In Companion to the Political Economy of Rent Seeking, edited by Congleton R. D., and Hillman A. L..Google Scholar

  • Dari-Mattiacci, G., and Parisi F. 2005. “Rents, Dissipation and Lost Treasures: Rethinking Tullock’s Paradox.” Public Choice 124 (3–4): 411–422.Google Scholar

  • Daughety, A. F., and Reinganum J. F.. 2003. “Found Money? Split-Award Statutes and Settlement of Punitive Damages Cases.” American Law and Economics Review 5 (1): 134–164.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Daughety, A. F., and Reinganum J. F.. 2005. “Economic Theories of Settlement Bargaining.” Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 1: 35–59.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Davis, M. L. 1994. “The Value of Truth and the Optimal Standard of Proof in Legal Disputes.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 10: 343.Google Scholar

  • De Mot, J. 2013. “Comparative versus Contributory Negligence: A Comparison of the Litigation Expenditures.” International Review of Law and Economics 33: 54–61.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Deffains, B., Demougin D., and Desrieux C.. 2017. “Choosing adr or Litigation.” International Review of Law and Economics 49: 33–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Demougin, D., and Fluet C.. 2005. “Deterrence versus Judicial Error: A Comparative View of Standards of Proof.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE 161 (2): 193–206.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Demougin, D., and Fluet C.. 2006. “Preponderance of Evidence.” European Economic Review 50 (4): 963–976.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dennis, I. H. 1999. The Law of Evidence, Volume 604. London: Sweet and Maxwell London.Google Scholar

  • Devitt, E. J., Blackmar C. B., and Wolff M. A.. 1987. Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Volume 1. West Pub. Co.Google Scholar

  • Engel, C. 2008. “Preponderance of the Evidence versus Intime Conviction: A Behavior Perspective on a Conflict between American and Continental European Law.” Vanderbilt Law Review 33: 435.Google Scholar

  • Farmer, A., and Pecorino P.. 1999. “Legal Expenditure as a Rent-Seeking Game.” Public Choice 100 (3–4): 271–288.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Farmer, A., and Pecorino P.. 2013a. “Discovery and Disclosure with Asymmetric Information and Endogenous Expenditure at Trial.” Journal of Legal Studies 42 (1): 223–247..CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Farmer, A., and Pecorino P.. 2013b. “Litigation with a Variable Cost of Trial.” Review of Law and Economics.

  • Froeb, L. M., Ganglmair B., and Tschantz S.. 2016. “Adversarial Decision-making: Choosing between Models Constructed by Interested Parties.” Journal of Law and Economics 59. forthcoming..Google Scholar

  • Gradstein, M. 1995. “Intensity of Competition, Entry and Entry Deterrence in rent Seeking Contests.” Economics and Politics 7 (1): 79–91.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Guerra, A., Luppi B., and Parisi F.. 2018. “Designing Optimal Juries.” Unpublished Manuscript. Available at SSRN: .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hay, B. 1997. “Allocating the Burden of Proof.” Indiana Law Journal 72: 651–679.Google Scholar

  • Hay, B. L., and Spier K. E.. 1997. “Burdens of Proof in Civil Litigation: An Economic Perspective.” Journal of Legal Studies 26: 413–431.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hillman, A. L., and Katz E.. 1988. “Risk-averse Rent Seekers and the Social Cost of Monopoly Power.” In The Political Economy of Rent-Seeking, edited by Rowley C. K., Tollison R. D., and Tullock G., 81–90. Springer..Google Scholar

  • Hirshleifer, J. 1989. Conflict and Rent-Seeking Success Functions: Ratio vs. Difference Models of Relative Success.” Public Choice 63 (2): 101–112.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hirshleifer, J., and Osborne E.. 2001. “Truth, Effort, and the Legal Battle.” Public Choice 108 (1–2): 169–195.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Horowitz, I. A., and Kirkpatrick L. C.. 1996. “A Concept in Search of a Definition: The Effects of Reasonable Doubt Instructions on Certainty of Guilt Standards and Jury Verdicts.” Law and Human Behavior 20 (6): 655.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kagehiro, D. K., and Stanton W. C.. 1985. “Legal vs. Quantified Definitions of Standards of Proof.” Law and Human Behavior 9 (2): 159.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kaplan, J. 1968. “Decision Theory and the Factfinding Process.” Stanford Law Review: 1065–1092..Google Scholar

  • Kaplow, L. 2012. “Burden of Proof.” The Yale Law Journal: 738–859..Google Scholar

  • Katz, A. 1988. Judicial Decisionmaking and Litigation Expenditure. International Review of Law and Economics 8 (2): 127–143.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kaye, D. 1982. “The Limits of the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard: Justifiably Naked Statistical Evidence and Multiple Causation.” Law and Social Inquiry 7 (2): 487–516.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kaye, D. H. 1983. “Statistical Significance and the Burden of Persuasion.” Law and Contemporary Problems 46 (4): 13–23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kaye, D. H. 1987. “Apples and Oranges: Confidence Coefficients and the Burden of Persuasion.” Cornell Law Review 73: 54.Google Scholar

  • Keenan, D. C., and Rubin P. H.. 1982. “Criminal Violations and Civil Violations.” Journal of Legal Studies 11 (2): 365–377.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Krueger, A. O. 1974. “The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society.” American Economic Review: 291–303.Google Scholar

  • Landeo, C. M., Nikitin M., and Babcock L.. 2007. “Split-Awards and Disputes: An Experimental Study of a Strategic Model of Litigation.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 63 (3): 553–572.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lemley, M. A., and Shapiro C.. 2005. “Probabilistic Patents.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (2): 75–98.Google Scholar

  • Leubsdorf, J. 1978. “The Standard for Preliminary Injunctions.” Harvard Law Review: 525–566.Google Scholar

  • Lichtman, D., and Lemley M. A.. 2007. “Rethinking Patent Law’s Presumption of Validity.” Stanford Law Review: 45–72.Google Scholar

  • Luppi, B., and Parisi F.. 2012. “Litigation and Legal Evolution: Does Procedure matter?" Public Choice 152 (1–2): 181–201.Google Scholar

  • McCauliff, C. M. 1982. “Burdens of Proof: Degrees of Belief, Quanta of Evidence, or Constitutional Quarantees.” Vanderbilt Law Review 35: 1293.Google Scholar

  • McNaughton, J. T. 1955. “Burden of Production of Evidence: A Function of a Burden of Persuasion.” Harvard Law Review 68 (8): 1382–1391.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Miceli, T. J. 1990. “Optimal Prosecution of Defendants Whose Guilt is Uncertain.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6: 189.Google Scholar

  • Parisi, F. 2002. “Rent-Seeking Through Litigation: Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems Compared.” International Review of Law and Economics 22 (2): 193–216.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pʼng, I. P. 1983. “Strategic Behavior in Suit, Settlement, and Trial.” The Bell Journal of Economics: 539–550.Google Scholar

  • Polinsky, A. M., and Rubinfeld D. L.. 1988. “The Deterrent Effects of Settlements and Trials.” International Review of Law and Economics 8 (1): 109–116.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Porat, A., and Stein A.. 2001. Tort Liability Under Uncertainty. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Redmayne, M. 1999. “Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation.” The Modern Law Review 62 (2): 167–195.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rubinfeld, D. L., and Sappington D. E.. 1987. “Efficient Awards and Standards of Proof in Judicial Proceedings.” The RAND Journal of Economics: 308–315.Google Scholar

  • Sanchirico, C. W. 1997. “The Burden of Proof in Civil Litigation: A Simple Model of Mechanism Design.” International Review of Law and Economics 17: 431–477.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schwartz, D. L., and Seaman C. B.. 2013. “Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation: An Experiment from Patent Law.” Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 26.Google Scholar

  • Scott, R. E., and Triantis G. G.. 2006. “Anticipating Litigation in Contract Design.” The Yale Law Journal 115 (4): 814–879.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shavell, S. 1997. “The Fundamental Divergence between the Private and the Social Motive to Use the Legal System.” Journal of Legal Studies 26 (S2): 575–612.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Spier, K. E. 1992. “The Dynamics of Pretrial Negotiation.” The Review of Economic Studies 59 (1): 93–108.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Spier, K. E. 1994a. “Pretrial Bargaining and the Design of Fee-Shifting Rules.” The RAND Journal of Economics: 197–214.Google Scholar

  • Spier, K. E. 1994b. “Settlement Bargaining and the Design of Damage Awards.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization: 84–95.Google Scholar

  • Spier, K. E. 1997. “A Note on the Divergence between the Private and the Social Motive to Settle Under a Negligence Rule. Journal of Legal Studies 26 (S2): 613–621.Google Scholar

  • Spier, K. E. (2002. “Settlement With Multiple Plaintiffs: The Role of Insolvency.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 18 (2): 295–323.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Taruffo, M. 2003. “Rethinking the Standards of Proof.” American Journal of Comparative Law 51 (3): 659–677.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tullock, G. 1967. “The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies, and Theft.” Western Economic Journal 5 (3): 224–32.Google Scholar

  • Tullock, G. 1975. “On the Efficient Organization of Trials.” Kyklos 28 (4): 745–762.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tullock, G. 1980. “Efficient Rent-Seeking. In Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society, edited by Buchanan J. M., Tollison R. D., and Tullock G., 97–112. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wainger, R. A. 1981. “Santosky v. Kramer: Clear and Convincing Evidence in Actions to Terminate Parental Rights.” University of Miami Law Review 36: 369.Google Scholar

  • Yilankaya, O. 2002. “A Model of Evidence Production and Optimal Standard of Proof and Penalty in Criminal Trials.” Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne D’economique 35 (2): 385–409.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zamir, E. and Ritov I. 2012. “Loss Aversion, Omission Bias, and the Burden of Proof in Civil Litigation.” Journal of Legal Studies 41 (1): 165–207.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-05-16


Citation Information: The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, Volume 19, Issue 1, 20170005, ISSN (Online) 1935-1704, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejte-2017-0005.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
António Osório and Barbara Luppi
International Review of Law and Economics, 2019, Volume 59, Page 21
[2]
Alice Guerra, Barbara Luppi, and Francesco Parisi
SSRN Electronic Journal , 2017
[3]
Shay Lavie, Tal Ganor, and Yuval Feldman
European Journal of Law and Economics, 2018

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in