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
3 - Speedy Adjudication in Hard Cases and Low Settlement Rates in Easy Cases
An Empirical Analysis of Taiwanese Courts with Comparison to US Federal Courts
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
This book chapter compares civil litigation in the courts of first and second instances in Taiwan in 2010–2015 with that in U.S. federal courts in 2010–2013. The two judicial systems, as expected, are different in many ways. Settlement rates in Taiwan, even broadly defined, were below 25%; in U.S. federal court, they exceed 70%. In Taiwan, summary judgments were basically non-existent; in U.S. federal court, they represent nearly a third of merits judgments. Rates of appeal in Taiwan are nearly 10 times higher (27% versus 3%) than in the U.S. federal courts. And yet judges in Taiwan, at least those in the court of first instance, handled cases more quickly than their colleagues in the U.S. federal courts—indeed, twice as fast. Yet, the two judicial systems respond similarly when encountering simple debt collection cases. These cases, large in number in both systems, fail to settle as standard theories would predict. Instead, these disputes are frequently resolved through default judgments. This chapter provides cautionary lessons for future empirical comparative civil procedure studies.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the WorldEmpirical Inquires, pp. 73 - 109Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Bebchuk, Lucian Arye. 1984. Litigation and Settlement Under Imperfect Information. The RAND Journal of Economics 15(3): 404–15.Google Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien. 2016. The Evolution of Property Law in Taiwan: An Unconventional Interest Group Story. In Private Law in China and Taiwan: Economic and Legal Analyses 212–244, edited by Chang, Yun-chien, Shen, Wei, and Wang, Wen Yeu. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien. 2017. Empirical Description of Civil Litigation in Japan in 1952–2015. In Festschrift for Former Supreme Court President Chi-Bin Wu. Taipei: New Sharing [in Chinese].Google Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien, Chen, Weitseng, and Ying Chieh, Wu. 2017. Property and Trust Law in Taiwan. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien, Eisenberg, Theodore, Li, Tsung Hsien, and Wells, Martin T.. 2017. Pain and Suffering Damages in Personal Injury Cases: An Empirical Study. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 14: 199–237.Google Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien, Garoupa, Nuno, and Wells, Martin. 2018. Drawing the Legal Family Tree: An Empirical Comparative Study of 108 Property Doctrines in 154 Jurisdictions. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien, and Hubbard, William. 2019. New Empirical Tests for Classic Litigation Selection Models. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien, and Su-hao, Tu. 2019, forthcoming. Two-way Selections Between Flat-fee Attorneys and Litigants: Theoretical and Empirical Analyses. European Journal of Law and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657–017-9566-3 (accessed July 7, 2019).Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Theodore, and Huang, Kuo-Chang. 2012. The Effect of Rules Shifting Supreme Court Jurisdiction from Mandatory to Discretionary–an Empirical Lesson from Taiwan. International Review of Law & Economics 32(1): 3–18.Google Scholar
Heise, Michael. 2018. When Winning Is Not Enough: Prevailing-Party Civil Appeals in State Courts. In Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the World: Empirical Inquires, edited by Chang, Yun-chien. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Helland, Eric, Klerman, Daniel, Dowling, Brendan, and Kappner, Alexander. 2017. Contingent Fee Litigation in New York City. Vanderbilt Law Review 70(6): 1971–92.Google Scholar
Huang, Kuo-Chang. 2009. Does Discovery Promote Settlement? An Empirical Answer. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 6(2): 241–78.Google Scholar
Hubbard, William H. J. 2017. The Effects of Twombly and Iqbal. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 14: 474–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, William H. J. 2018. Stalling and Stonewalling in Litigation. Unpublished working paper.Google Scholar
Langbein, John H. 1985. The German Advantage in Civil Procedure. The University of Chicago Law Review 52(4): 823–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prescott, J. J., and Sanchez, Alexander. 2018. Platform Procedure: Using Technology to Facilitate (Efficient) Civil Settlement. In Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the World: Empirical Inquiries, edited by Chang, Yun-chien. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Priest, George L., and Klein, Benjamin. 1984. The Selection of Disputes for Litigation. The Journal of Legal Studies 13(1): 1–56.Google Scholar
Ramseyer, J. Mark. 2015. Second-Best Justice: The Virtues of Japanese Private Law. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinganum, Jennifer F., and Wilde, Louis L.. 1986. Settlement, Litigation, and the Allocation of Litigation Costs. The RAND Journal of Economics 17(4): 557–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spier, Kathryn E. 2007. Litigation. In Polinsky, A. M. and Shavell, S. M. (Eds.), Handbook of Law and Economics, Volume 1, pp. 259–342. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wang, Tay-sheng. 2002. The Legal Development of Taiwan in the 20th Century: Toward a Liberal and Democratic Country. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal 11: 531–60.Google Scholar
Wright, Charles Alan, Miller, Arthur R., and Kane, Mary Kay. 2018. Federal Practice and Procedure. 4th ed. Vol. 10A. New York: Thompson West.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by