Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBentsen, Henrik Litleré
dc.contributor.authorGrendstad, Gunnar
dc.contributor.authorShaffer, William R.
dc.contributor.authorWaltenburg, Eric N.
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-14T13:02:43Z
dc.date.available2022-02-14T13:02:43Z
dc.date.created2021-06-10T14:33:59Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.issn0098-261X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2978822
dc.description.abstractWhile high courts with fixed time for oral arguments deprive researchers of the opportunity to extract temporal variance, courts that apply the “accordion model” institutional design and adjust the time for oral arguments according to the perceived complexity of a case are a boon for research that seeks to validate case complexity well ahead of the courts’ opinion writing. We analyze an original data set of all 1,402 merits decisions of the Norwegian Supreme Court from 2008 to 2018 where the justices set time for oral arguments to accommodate the anticipated difficulty of the case. Our validation model empirically tests whether and how attributes of a case associated with ex ante complexity are linked with time allocated for oral arguments. Cases that deal with international law and civil law, have several legal players, are cross-appeals from lower courts are indicative of greater case complexity. We argue that these results speak powerfully to the use of case attributes and/or the time reserved for oral arguments as ex ante measures of case complexity. To enhance the external validity of our findings, future studies should examine whether these results are confirmed in high courts with similar institutional design for oral arguments. Subsequent analyses should also test the degree to which complex cases and/or time for oral arguments have predictive validity on more divergent opinions among the justices and on the time courts and justices need to render a final opinion.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherRoutledgeen_US
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881667
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleA High Court Plays the Accordion: Validating Ex Ante Case Complexity on Oral Argumentsen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2021 The Author(s)en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881667
dc.identifier.cristin1915092
dc.source.journalJustice System Journalen_US
dc.source.pagenumber130-149en_US
dc.identifier.citationJustice System Journal. 2021, 42 (2), 130-149.en_US
dc.source.volume42en_US
dc.source.issue2en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal