Judicial Procedural Involvement (JPI): A Metric for Judges’ Role in Civil Litigation, Settlement, and Access to Justice
We examine judges’ role in civil litigation by studying empirically the relationship between judicial procedural involvement (JPI) and lawsuits’ mode of disposition (MoD). Furthermore, we propose JPI as a metric for the allocation of judicial attention to litigants. Applying the framework to Israeli...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of law and society 2020-09, Vol.47 (3), p.468-498 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 498 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 468 |
container_title | Journal of law and society |
container_volume | 47 |
creator | Sela, Ayelet Gabay‐Egozi, Limor |
description | We examine judges’ role in civil litigation by studying empirically the relationship between judicial procedural involvement (JPI) and lawsuits’ mode of disposition (MoD). Furthermore, we propose JPI as a metric for the allocation of judicial attention to litigants. Applying the framework to Israeli trial court data, we find that 60 per cent of cases included JPI (through hearings and rulings on motions) whereas 40 per cent involved only the court's institutional function. By juxtaposing JPI and MoD data, we shed light on the scope of judicial involvement in settlements, the ratio between judges’ normative public‐life function and their problem‐solving function, and other pertinent questions. Since nowadays lawsuits are rarely adjudicated, trial rates are low, and litigants in person (pro se litigants) are common, we argue that access to justice should also be construed in terms of access to judicial attention throughout the proceeding, which is readily measurable through JPI. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/jols.12243 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2434727779</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A633044811</galeid><sourcerecordid>A633044811</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3323-f0d75698e810e680d8d6f83a1c83ebd03c6e4985b903d2b23bbd9120d544263</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9OGzEQxq2qSE0Dlz6BpUpVQWxqr51dL7coKiVRKhDpoTdr156NHJk12N7Q3HgNXq9PgsNyZi4zh983_z6EvlAyoSl-bJ0NE5rnnH1AI8qLMit4KT6iEckLlrGc_f2EPoewJYRQVooR2i97bZSpLb7xToHufSoX3c7ZHdxBF_H35c3i9ALP8G-I3ijcOo-TZgPh_9MzvnUWsOnw3OyMxSsTzaaOxnXneA0x2tcW57juNJ4pBSHg6JI6RKPgGB21tQ1w8pbHaH3588_8Kltd_1rMZ6tMsbRv1hJdTotKgKAECkG00EUrWE2VYNBowlQBvBLTpiJM503OmkZXNCd6ynm6eYy-Dl3vvXvoIUS5db3v0kCZnsTLvCzLKlHfBmpTW5CmU66L8C9u6j4EKWcFY4RzQWkCzwZQeReCh1bee3NX-72kRB4ckAcH5KsDCaYD_Ggs7N8h5fJ6tR40L6qvh9Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2434727779</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Judicial Procedural Involvement (JPI): A Metric for Judges’ Role in Civil Litigation, Settlement, and Access to Justice</title><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Sela, Ayelet ; Gabay‐Egozi, Limor</creator><creatorcontrib>Sela, Ayelet ; Gabay‐Egozi, Limor</creatorcontrib><description>We examine judges’ role in civil litigation by studying empirically the relationship between judicial procedural involvement (JPI) and lawsuits’ mode of disposition (MoD). Furthermore, we propose JPI as a metric for the allocation of judicial attention to litigants. Applying the framework to Israeli trial court data, we find that 60 per cent of cases included JPI (through hearings and rulings on motions) whereas 40 per cent involved only the court's institutional function. By juxtaposing JPI and MoD data, we shed light on the scope of judicial involvement in settlements, the ratio between judges’ normative public‐life function and their problem‐solving function, and other pertinent questions. Since nowadays lawsuits are rarely adjudicated, trial rates are low, and litigants in person (pro se litigants) are common, we argue that access to justice should also be construed in terms of access to judicial attention throughout the proceeding, which is readily measurable through JPI.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0263-323X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-6478</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jols.12243</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Access ; Actions and defenses ; Attention ; Courts ; Criminal sentences ; Judges & magistrates ; Justice ; Litigation ; Participation ; Procedural justice ; Trials</subject><ispartof>Journal of law and society, 2020-09, Vol.47 (3), p.468-498</ispartof><rights>2020 The Author. Journal of Law and Society © 2020 Cardiff University Law School</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Blackwell Publishers Ltd.</rights><rights>2020 Cardiff University Law School</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3323-f0d75698e810e680d8d6f83a1c83ebd03c6e4985b903d2b23bbd9120d544263</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjols.12243$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjols.12243$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27923,27924,33773,45573,45574</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sela, Ayelet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gabay‐Egozi, Limor</creatorcontrib><title>Judicial Procedural Involvement (JPI): A Metric for Judges’ Role in Civil Litigation, Settlement, and Access to Justice</title><title>Journal of law and society</title><description>We examine judges’ role in civil litigation by studying empirically the relationship between judicial procedural involvement (JPI) and lawsuits’ mode of disposition (MoD). Furthermore, we propose JPI as a metric for the allocation of judicial attention to litigants. Applying the framework to Israeli trial court data, we find that 60 per cent of cases included JPI (through hearings and rulings on motions) whereas 40 per cent involved only the court's institutional function. By juxtaposing JPI and MoD data, we shed light on the scope of judicial involvement in settlements, the ratio between judges’ normative public‐life function and their problem‐solving function, and other pertinent questions. Since nowadays lawsuits are rarely adjudicated, trial rates are low, and litigants in person (pro se litigants) are common, we argue that access to justice should also be construed in terms of access to judicial attention throughout the proceeding, which is readily measurable through JPI.</description><subject>Access</subject><subject>Actions and defenses</subject><subject>Attention</subject><subject>Courts</subject><subject>Criminal sentences</subject><subject>Judges & magistrates</subject><subject>Justice</subject><subject>Litigation</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>Procedural justice</subject><subject>Trials</subject><issn>0263-323X</issn><issn>1467-6478</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9OGzEQxq2qSE0Dlz6BpUpVQWxqr51dL7coKiVRKhDpoTdr156NHJk12N7Q3HgNXq9PgsNyZi4zh983_z6EvlAyoSl-bJ0NE5rnnH1AI8qLMit4KT6iEckLlrGc_f2EPoewJYRQVooR2i97bZSpLb7xToHufSoX3c7ZHdxBF_H35c3i9ALP8G-I3ijcOo-TZgPh_9MzvnUWsOnw3OyMxSsTzaaOxnXneA0x2tcW57juNJ4pBSHg6JI6RKPgGB21tQ1w8pbHaH3588_8Kltd_1rMZ6tMsbRv1hJdTotKgKAECkG00EUrWE2VYNBowlQBvBLTpiJM503OmkZXNCd6ynm6eYy-Dl3vvXvoIUS5db3v0kCZnsTLvCzLKlHfBmpTW5CmU66L8C9u6j4EKWcFY4RzQWkCzwZQeReCh1bee3NX-72kRB4ckAcH5KsDCaYD_Ggs7N8h5fJ6tR40L6qvh9Q</recordid><startdate>202009</startdate><enddate>202009</enddate><creator>Sela, Ayelet</creator><creator>Gabay‐Egozi, Limor</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202009</creationdate><title>Judicial Procedural Involvement (JPI): A Metric for Judges’ Role in Civil Litigation, Settlement, and Access to Justice</title><author>Sela, Ayelet ; Gabay‐Egozi, Limor</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3323-f0d75698e810e680d8d6f83a1c83ebd03c6e4985b903d2b23bbd9120d544263</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Access</topic><topic>Actions and defenses</topic><topic>Attention</topic><topic>Courts</topic><topic>Criminal sentences</topic><topic>Judges & magistrates</topic><topic>Justice</topic><topic>Litigation</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>Procedural justice</topic><topic>Trials</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sela, Ayelet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gabay‐Egozi, Limor</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Journal of law and society</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sela, Ayelet</au><au>Gabay‐Egozi, Limor</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Judicial Procedural Involvement (JPI): A Metric for Judges’ Role in Civil Litigation, Settlement, and Access to Justice</atitle><jtitle>Journal of law and society</jtitle><date>2020-09</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>468</spage><epage>498</epage><pages>468-498</pages><issn>0263-323X</issn><eissn>1467-6478</eissn><abstract>We examine judges’ role in civil litigation by studying empirically the relationship between judicial procedural involvement (JPI) and lawsuits’ mode of disposition (MoD). Furthermore, we propose JPI as a metric for the allocation of judicial attention to litigants. Applying the framework to Israeli trial court data, we find that 60 per cent of cases included JPI (through hearings and rulings on motions) whereas 40 per cent involved only the court's institutional function. By juxtaposing JPI and MoD data, we shed light on the scope of judicial involvement in settlements, the ratio between judges’ normative public‐life function and their problem‐solving function, and other pertinent questions. Since nowadays lawsuits are rarely adjudicated, trial rates are low, and litigants in person (pro se litigants) are common, we argue that access to justice should also be construed in terms of access to judicial attention throughout the proceeding, which is readily measurable through JPI.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/jols.12243</doi><tpages>31</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0263-323X |
ispartof | Journal of law and society, 2020-09, Vol.47 (3), p.468-498 |
issn | 0263-323X 1467-6478 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2434727779 |
source | Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Sociological Abstracts; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | Access Actions and defenses Attention Courts Criminal sentences Judges & magistrates Justice Litigation Participation Procedural justice Trials |
title | Judicial Procedural Involvement (JPI): A Metric for Judges’ Role in Civil Litigation, Settlement, and Access to Justice |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T21%3A11%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Judicial%20Procedural%20Involvement%20(JPI):%20A%20Metric%20for%20Judges%E2%80%99%20Role%20in%20Civil%20Litigation,%20Settlement,%20and%20Access%20to%20Justice&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20law%20and%20society&rft.au=Sela,%20Ayelet&rft.date=2020-09&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=468&rft.epage=498&rft.pages=468-498&rft.issn=0263-323X&rft.eissn=1467-6478&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jols.12243&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA633044811%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2434727779&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A633044811&rfr_iscdi=true |