THE DIVIDED SUPREME COURT, 1944-1945

The United States Supreme Court has in recent years been supplying fascinating material for students interested in the interplay of personal and institutional factors in the judicial decision-making process. Contrary to the more restrictive practices of some other legal systems, the traditions of the American judiciary have never insisted that justices sitting en banc should hide the existence of division among themselves behind a facade of pretended unanimity. Justices who dissent from a decision of their brethren have been permitted to say so, and to give their reasons. This practice has had an immeasurably great effect in facilitating the growth of the law and in promoting a personalization of the responsibility of the judge

La Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos y la actitud pública

Resumen en español.Resumen en inglés

Empirical Legal Studies Before 1940: A Bibliographic Essay

The modern empirical legal studies movement has well-known antecedents in the law and society and law and economics traditions of the latter half of the 20th century. Less well known is the body of empirical research on legal phenomena from the period prior to World War II. This paper is an extensive bibliographic essay that surveys the English language empirical legal research from approximately 1940 and earlier. The essay is arranged around the themes in the research: criminal justice, civil justice (general studies of civil litigation, auto accident litigation and compensation, divorce, small claims, jurisdiction and procedure, civil juries), debt and bankruptcy, banking, appellate courts, legal needs, legal profession (including legal education), and judicial staffing and selection. Accompanying the essay is an extensive bibliography of research articles, books, and reports

Correction to: Cluster identification, selection, and description in Cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article