Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

Encyclopedia of Law & Economics – 7900 Evidence

  • Boari, Nicola (1997), ‘On the Efficiency of Penal Systems: Several Lessons from the Italian Experience’, 17 International Review of Law and Economics , 115-126.
  • Bundy, Stephen M. and Elhauge, Einer Richard (1991), ‘Do Lawyers Improve the Adversary System? A General Theory of Litigation Advice and Its Regulation’, 79 California Law Review , 313-420.
  • Cooper, Edward H. (1994), ‘Discovery Cost Allocation: Comment’, 23 Journal of Legal Studies , 465-480.
  • Cooter, Robert D. and Rubinfeld, Daniel L. (1994), ‘An Economic Model of Legal Discovery in the U.S.’, 23 Journal of Legal Studies , 435-463.
  • Davis, Michael L. (1994), ‘The Value of Truth and the Optimal Standard of Proof in Legal Disputes’, 10 Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization , 343-359.
  • Easterbrook, Frank H. (1989), ‘Comment: Discovery as Abuse’, 69 Boston University Law Review , 635-648.
  • Elliott, E. Donald (1989), ‘Toward Incentive-Based Procedure: Three Approaches for Regulating Scientific Evidence’, 69 Boston University Law Review , 487-511.
  • Fairley, William B. (1973), ‘Probabilistic Analysis of Identification Evidence’, 2 Journal of Legal Studies , 493-513.
  • Fienberg, Stephen E. (ed.) (1989), The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts , New York, Springer, 357 p.
  • Froeb, Luke M. and Kobayashi, Bruce H. (1996), ‘Naive, Biased, Yet Bayesian: Can Juries Interpret Selectively Produced Evidence?’, 12 Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization .
  • Gibbons, T. and Hutchinson, A.C. (1982), ‘The Practice and Theory of Evidence Law – A Note’, 2 International Review of Law and Economics , 119-126.
  • Grady, Mark F., Allen, Ronald J. and Polsby, Daniel (1990), ‘A Positive Theory of the Attorney-Client Privilige and the Work-Product Doctrine’, 19 Journal of Legal Studies , 359 ff.
  • Gross, Samuel R. (1987), ‘Loss of Innocence: Eyewitness Identification and Proof of Guilt’, 16 Journal of Legal Studies , 395-453.
  • Hay, Bruce L. (1994), ‘Civil Discovery: Its Effects and Optimal Scope’, 23 Journal of Legal Studies , 481-515.
  • Hay, Bruce L. and Spier, Kathryn E. (1997), ‘Burdens of Proof in Civil Litigation : An Economic Perspective’, 16 Journal of Legal Studies , 413-431.
  • Hay, Bruce L. and Spier, Kathryn E. (1997), ‘Burdens of Production in Civil Litigation : An Economic Perspective’, Journal of Legal Studies .
  • Holm, Hakan J. (1995), ‘Computational Cost of Verifying Enforceable Contracts’, 15 International Review of Law and Economics , 127-140.
  • Huber, Peter W. (1989), ‘A Comment on ‘Toward Incentive-Based Procedure: Three Approaches for Regulating Scientific Evidence’ by E. Donald Elliott’, 69 Boston University Law Review , 513-516.
  • Jost, Peter J. (1995), ‘Disclosure of Information and Incentives for Care’, 15 International Review of Law and Economics , 65-85.
  • Kaplow, Louis (1980), ‘Note, the Theoretical Foundation of the Hearsay Rules’, 93 Harvard Law Review , 1786-1815.
  • Kaplow, Louis (1994), ‘The Value of Accuracy in Adjudication: An Economic Analysis’, 23 Journal of Legal Studies , 307-401.
  • Kaplow, Louis and Shavell, Steven (1989), ‘Legal Advice about Information to Present in Litigation: Its Effects and Social Desirability’, 102 Harvard Law Review , 565-615.
  • Kaplow, Louis and Shavell, Steven (1990), ‘Legal Advice about Acts Already Committed’, 10 International Review of Law and Economics , 149-159.
  • Kaplow, Louis and Shavell, Steven (1996), ‘Accuracy in the Assessment of Damages’, 39 Journal of Law and Economics , 191-209.
  • Levmore, Saul and Stuntz, William J. (1990), ‘Remedies and Incentives in Private and Public Law: A Comparative Essay’, Wisconsin Law Review , 483-499.
  • Lewis, Donald E. (1983), ‘Economic Aspects of the Parole Decision’, 22 Australian Economic Papers , 259-279.
  • Rubinfeld, Daniel L. and Sappington, David E.M. (1987), ‘Effi cient Awards and Standards of Proof in Judicial Procee dings’, 18 Rand Journal of Economics , 308-315.
  • Sanchirico, Chris William (1997), ‘The Burden of Proof in Civil Litigation : A Simple Model of Mechanism Design’, International Review of Law and Economics .
  • Sanchirico, Chris William (1997), Enforcement by Hearing: An Integrated Model of Evidence Production , mimeo, Columbia University Economics Department.
  • Sanchirico, Chris William (1997), ‘Evidence Production, Adversarial Process and the Private Instigation of Suits’, mimeo, Columbia University Economics Department .
  • Sanchirico, Chris William (1997), ‘The Burden of Proof in Civil Litigation: A Simple Model of Mechanism Design’, 17 International Review of Law and Economics , 431-447.
  • Schwartz, Robert L. (1989), ‘There is no Archbishop of Science – A Comment on Elliott’s Toward Incentive-Based Procedure: Three Approaches for Regulating Scientific Evidence’, 69 Boston University Law Review , 517-525.
  • Setear, John K. (1989), ‘The Barrister and the Bomb: The Dynamics of Cooperation, Nuclear Deterrence, and Discovery Abuse’, 69 Boston University Law Review , 569-633.
  • Shavell, Steven (1988), ‘Legal Advice About Contemplated Acts: The Decision to Obtain Advice, Its Social Desirability, and the Protection of Confidentiality’, 17 Journal of Legal Studies , 123-150.
  • Shavell, Steven (1989), ‘Optimal Sanctions and the Incentive to Provide Evidence to Legal Tribunals’, 9 International Review of Law and Economics , 3-11.
  • Shaviro, Daniel N. (1989), ‘Statistical Probability Evidence and the Appearance of Justice’, 103 Harvard Law Review , 530-554.
  • Shaviro, Daniel N. and Koehler, Jonathan J. (1990), ‘Veridical Verdicts: Increasing Verdict Accuracy Through the Use of Overtly Probabilistic Evidence and Methods’, 75 Cornell Law Review , 247-279.
  • Sobel, Joel (1989), ‘An Analysis of Discovery Rules’, 52(1) Law and Contemporary Problems , 133-160.
  • Spier, Kathryn E. and Hay, Bruce L. (1996), ‘Burdens of Production in Civil Litigation: An Economic Perspective’, Journal of Legal Studies .
  • Spiotto, James E. (1973), ‘Search and Seizure: An Empirical Study of the Exclusionary Rule and Its Alternatives’, 2 Journal of Legal Studies , 243-278.
  • Tullock, Gordon (1988), ‘Defending the Napoleontic Code over the Common Law’, 2 Research in Law and Policy Studies , 3-27.
  • Weinstein, Jack B. (1989), ‘What Discovery Abuse? A Comment on John Setear’s the Barrister and the Bomb’, 69 Boston University Law Review , 649-657.
  • X (1980), ‘Note: The Theoretical Foundation of the Hearsay Rules’, 93 Harvard Law Review , 1786-1815.
Copied to clipboard