Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by
Crossref.
Lempert, Richard
1999.
A Classic at 25: Reflections on Galanter's “Haves” Article and Work It Has Inspired.
Law & Society Review,
Vol. 33,
Issue. 4,
p.
1099.
Epp, Charles R.
1999.
The Two Motifs of “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead” and Its Heirs.
Law & Society Review,
Vol. 33,
Issue. 4,
p.
1089.
Bacher, Jean-Luc
Bouchard, Martin
Tremblay, Pierre
and
Paquin, Julie
2005.
Another Look at the "Corporate Advantage" in Routine Criminal Proceedings.
Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
Vol. 47,
Issue. 4,
p.
685.
Belge, Ceren
2006.
Friends of the Court: The Republican Alliance and Selective Activism of the Constitutional Court of Turkey.
Law & Society Review,
Vol. 40,
Issue. 3,
p.
653.
Forman, Geremy
2006.
Law and the historical geography of the Galilee: Israel's litigatory advantages during the special operation of land settlement.
Journal of Historical Geography,
Vol. 32,
Issue. 4,
p.
796.
Dor, Gal
and
Hofnung, Menachem
2006.
Litigation as Political Participation.
Israel Studies,
Vol. 11,
Issue. 2,
p.
131.
He, X.
2009.
Routinization of Divorce Law Practice in China: Institutional Constraints' Influence on Judicial Behaviour.
International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family,
Vol. 23,
Issue. 1,
p.
83.
Dioso-Villa, Rachel
2010.
Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Outcomes and the Legal Rhetoric of Expert Evidence (Doctoral Dissertation).
SSRN Electronic Journal,
GILAD, SHARON
2010.
Why the “Haves” Do Not Necessarily Come Out Ahead in Informal Dispute Resolution.
Law & Policy,
Vol. 32,
Issue. 3,
p.
283.
Eisenberg, Theodore
2010.
The Origins, Nature, and Promise of Empirical Legal Studies and a Response to Concerns.
SSRN Electronic Journal,
Lin, Chang-Ching
Huang, Kuo-Chang
and
Chen, Kong-Pin
2010.
Party Capability versus Court Preference: Why the 'Haves' Come Out Ahead? - An Empirical Lesson from Taiwan Supreme Court.
SSRN Electronic Journal,
Black, R. C.
and
Boyd, C. L.
2012.
US Supreme Court Agenda Setting and the Role of Litigant Status.
Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization,
Vol. 28,
Issue. 2,
p.
286.
Talesh, Shauhin A.
2012.
How Dispute Resolution System Design Matters: An Organizational Analysis of Dispute Resolution Structures and Consumer Lemon Laws.
Law & Society Review,
Vol. 46,
Issue. 3,
p.
463.
Sheehan, Reginald S.
and
Randazzo, Kirk A.
2012.
Explaining Litigant Success in the High Court of Australia.
Australian Journal of Political Science,
Vol. 47,
Issue. 2,
p.
239.
He, Xin
and
Su, Yang
2013.
Do the “Haves” Come Out Ahead in Shanghai Courts?.
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies,
Vol. 10,
Issue. 1,
p.
120.
Shinar, Adam
2013.
Social and Political Foundations of Constitutions.
p.
207.
Sommer, Udi
Asal, Victor
Zuber, Katie
and
Parent, Jonathan
2013.
Institutional Paths to Policy Change: Judicial Versus Nonjudicial Repeal of Sodomy Laws.
Law & Society Review,
Vol. 47,
Issue. 2,
p.
409.
Hanretty, Chris
2014.
Haves and Have-Nots before the Law Lords.
Political Studies,
Vol. 62,
Issue. 3,
p.
686.
Ruiz, Gonzalo Martin
2014.
Understanding the Pro-plaintiff Bias in Consumer Protection Legal Processes.
Journal of Consumer Policy,
Vol. 37,
Issue. 1,
p.
113.
Gliksberg, David
2014.
Competing (?) Spectrums: Haves and Have-Nots vs. Government and Government-Nots.
SSRN Electronic Journal,