FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W348033430> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W348033430 startingPage "1577" @default.
• W348033430 abstract "Commentary Is it just for the moment that we live [and decide cases]?1 Or are there larger principles that unite and constrain the resolution of fact-intensive tort cases? Professor Abel does not provide an answer, but he does paint a disturbing portrait of esteemed judges who seem content with limiting liability and laying down inflexible tests for recovery without any explicit grand plan or larger vision. One's reaction to Professor Abel's article depends in large part on one's starting point. In this Comment, I consider his article from the perspective of three different groups-empiricists, doctrinal scholars, and legal theorists. Empiricists might discount or even dismiss Professor Abel's descriptive analysis because it violates a number of important methodological tenets of empirical research. And, while I cannot defend Professor Abel's methods from such attacks, I do question whether these empirical deficiencies ultimately matter in assessing the value of Professor Abel's argument. The second group, doctrinal scholars and those who do qualitative research, are likely to agree with Professor Abel's overall argument that liability-limiting opinions are incoherent. Yet this group is also likely to take issue with some of Abel's criteria and assumptions, which they argue could lead Abel to an incomplete characterization of the problem. Finally, legal theorists will probably share Professor Abel's disparaging view of the quality of tort opinions and will be eager to assist him in a search for unifying principles that could or should underlie the courts' liability-limiting decisions. In the spirit of the theorist, I offer one such principle-the informationally advantaged plaintiff-to explain some of the liability limiting cases Professor Abel cites. IMAGE FORMULA5 I. Anticipating the Empiricist's Concerns Empiricists' first reaction to Professor Abel's article is likely be shame on you, Professor Abel, you are a social scientist and should know better.2 From an empirical perspective, Professor Abel's analysis leaves much to be desired. First, Professor Abel never provides criteria for determining when a judicial opinion provides no reasons or patently ones to justify limits on liability.3 Without criteria for distinguishing opinions from inadequate opinions, however, the reader is left wondering whether the courts provided only a passing reference to concerns about floodgates of litigation or whether they went further, but not as far as Professor Abel would have liked. Second, and even more important for the empiricist, Professor Abel's data set is neither random nor complete. Professor Abel cites to a broad array of tort opinions, spanning over 150 years,4 including cases from twelve U.S. states5 as well as England and Australia, and covering a wide range of liability issues.6 The only common denominator among the selected cases appears to be that they are high-profile cases where the courts were unusually cryptic in their analysis. Based on the methodological shortcomings of his analysis, a devout empiricist, especially one unfamiliar with tort law, might dismiss Professor Abel's grim assessment of how courts make decisions to limit liability in tort cases. Without random selection of the cases and a validated method of coding them, Professor Abel's article may be viewed by this group as worthless. Dismissing Professor Abel's article on strictly empirical grounds, however, would be a mistake. Indeed, doing so seems ironic in light of the fact that on a good day, much empirical work shows no effect; even if relationships among variables are found, standard deviations are often so large that the implications of the conclusions are limited. Empirical work is essential to learning about the legal system, but much can also be learned from reading cases. In contrast to most empirical studies, which can only tackle narrow questions and falsify hypotheses, qualitative studies offer a IMAGE FORMULA8descriptive picture of the legal system that is far more positive and accessible. …" @default.
• W348033430 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W348033430 creator A5030084724 @default.
• W348033430 date "2002-06-01" @default.
• W348033430 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W348033430 title "What's It All about, Cardozo?" @default.
• W348033430 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W348033430 type Work @default.
• W348033430 sameAs 348033430 @default.
• W348033430 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W348033430 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W348033430 hasAuthorship W348033430A5030084724 @default.
• W348033430 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W348033430 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W348033430 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W348033430 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W348033430 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W348033430 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W348033430 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W348033430 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W348033430 hasConcept C36790819 @default.
• W348033430 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W348033430 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W348033430 hasConceptScore W348033430C111472728 @default.
• W348033430 hasConceptScore W348033430C138885662 @default.
• W348033430 hasConceptScore W348033430C144024400 @default.
• W348033430 hasConceptScore W348033430C17744445 @default.
• W348033430 hasConceptScore W348033430C185592680 @default.
• W348033430 hasConceptScore W348033430C190253527 @default.
• W348033430 hasConceptScore W348033430C199539241 @default.
• W348033430 hasConceptScore W348033430C2777834853 @default.
• W348033430 hasConceptScore W348033430C36790819 @default.
• W348033430 hasConceptScore W348033430C55493867 @default.
• W348033430 hasConceptScore W348033430C98184364 @default.
• W348033430 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W348033430 hasLocation W3480334301 @default.
• W348033430 hasOpenAccess W348033430 @default.
• W348033430 hasPrimaryLocation W3480334301 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W1504498107 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W1535112415 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W194285312 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W1971742011 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W1972151788 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W2019264431 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W2078492306 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W2086987160 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W2095990640 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W2119867737 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W2312543468 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W2472365834 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W2587550899 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W2623407486 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W2728758142 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W284594328 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W346094013 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W574074143 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W61986090 @default.
• W348033430 hasRelatedWork W3121740107 @default.
• W348033430 hasVolume "80" @default.
• W348033430 isParatext "false" @default.
• W348033430 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W348033430 magId "348033430" @default.
• W348033430 workType "article" @default.