Panel effects have been widely studied in randomly composed panels. However, for many
courts, panel composition stays constant. Then judges become familiar with each other …

Does the partisan composition of three-judge panels affect how earlier opinions are treated
and thus how the law develops? Using a novel data set of Shepard's treatments for all cases …

The presence of “peer effects”—that an ideologically homogenous panel decides a case in a
more characteristically partisan way than an ideologically diverse panel—is a standard …

Many empirical studies have found that circuit judges' votes are significantly influenced by
their panel colleagues. Although this influence is typically measured in terms of colleagues' …

Outcomes of appeals to high courts will depend in part on the ideological preferences of the
justices who decide the appeals. The institutional structure of a high court may affect how far …

This article develops and analyzes a hierarchical model of judicial review in multimember
appellate courts. In our model, judicial panels acquire information endogenously, through …

Constitutional court judges maintain to be independent, apolitical actors, even though they
get nominated by political elites. So far, much of the research has focused on the legal …

Collegiality plays a central role in judicial decision‐making. However, we still lack empirical
evidence about the effects of collegiality on judicial decision‐making. In this article, I argue …

Ideological models are widely accepted as the basis for many academic studies of the
Supreme Court because of their power in predicting the justices' decision‐making behavior …

This article investigates two issues unexplored in studies of the relationship between panel
composition and voting on three-judge panels of the Courts of Appeals: how often will panel …