Do the "haves" still come out ahead? Resource inequalities in ideological courts: The case of the Israeli High Court of Justice

Yoav Dotan*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

50 Scopus citations

Abstract

This research note examines the relations between judicial preferences, institutional concerns, and litigation outcomes. I found that in litigation before the Israeli High Court of Justice, the "haves" enjoyed only a limited advantage over "have nots" in litigation outcomes. I also found that when "have nots" were represented by legal counsel, the "haves" did not come out ahead. Ideological propensities of judges and considerations of institutional autonomy can ameliorate, to some extent, the inherent inferiority of "have nots" in litigation. It was also found that the mechanisms that worked in favor of "have nots" operated not only in litigation that reached final judicial disposition but also when the litigation was disposed through out-of-court settlements.

Original languageAmerican English
Pages (from-to)1059-1080
Number of pages22
JournalLaw and Society Review
Volume33
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 1999

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Do the "haves" still come out ahead? Resource inequalities in ideological courts: The case of the Israeli High Court of Justice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this