Book a demo

Pre/Dicta Research Center

A Library of Structural & Contextual Drivers of Case Outcomes

Pre/Dicta *prē-dik-tə* n.
The structural and contextual conditions that precede the facts and the law, shaping case outcomes prior to the court’s articulation of legal reasoning or doctrine. — Etym. Pre- (“before”) + dicta (from dicere, “to say”); modeled on obiter dicta in common-law usage.

Bias Type
Select some options
Bias Type
Identity Attributes
Select some options
Identity Attributes
Judicial Attributes
Select some options
Judicial Attributes
Research Method
Select some options
Research Method
Jurisdiction
Select some options
Jurisdiction
Outcomes
Select some options
Outcomes
Time Period
Select some options
Time Period
Practive Area
Select some options
Practive Area
Litigation Stages
Select some options
Litigation Stages
Strategic Phase
Select some options
Strategic Phase
Strategic Focus
Select some options
Strategic Focus
Business Lens
Select some options
Business Lens

The Pre/Dicta research center demonstrates that case outcomes are not solely determined by facts and law, but emerge from observable, repeatable decision environments in which extra-legal factors consistently influence procedural trajectories and final dispositions.

The Pervasive Influence of Ideology at the Federal Circuit Courts

Using 670,000 federal appellate decisions, this study demonstrates that the appointing president’s party systematically shapes circuit court outcomes, even in routine and unpublished cases.

When Organizations Rule: Judicial Deference to Institutionalized Employment Structures

Using over three decades of federal employment decisions, this study shows that judges increasingly treat internal HR and compliance structures as evidence of legal compliance, often without examining whether those structures actually prevent discrimination.

Litigant Success: How Litigant Configurations Relate to Legal Outcomes

A detailed analysis demonstrating that litigant structure is a measurable predictor of legal outcomes, with complex configurations reducing success rates.

Judges in the Lab

Experimental evidence shows that judges rely less on precedent and more on discretionary, extra-legal factors than traditional theory assumes.

The Home Court Advantage in International Corporate Litigation

Analyzing over 3,000 U.S. federal corporate cases, this study finds that foreign firms suffer larger market penalties and lower trial win rates than U.S. firms, evidencing a home court advantage.

Ethnicity and Sentencing Outcomes in U.S. Federal Courts: Who Is Punished More Harshly?

A large-scale empirical analysis showing that ethnicity independently predicts harsher federal sentencing outcomes, especially for Hispanic and Black-Hispanic defendants.

Panel Composition and Judicial Compliance on the US Courts of Appeals

Jonathan Kastellec develops a game-theoretic model showing how three-judge panel composition and potential whistleblower dissents shape the U.S. Courts of Appeals’ compliance with Supreme Court doctrine.

Empirical Research on Civil Discovery

A synthesis of decades of empirical research demonstrating that civil discovery follows predictable patterns shaped by case complexity, incentives, and judicial management.

Justice Isn’t Blind: The Impact of Lawyer Appearance on Judicial Decision Making

Analyzing over 3,000 federal appellate judicial votes, this study finds that lawyers perceived as more attractive enjoy a substantial, measurable boost in their chances of winning, even after controlling for legal merits and experience.

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

The Code of Conduct outlines how federal judges must avoid bias and maintain impartiality, revealing where judicial behavior shapes litigation strategy.

Judicial Partisanship and Obedience to Legal Doctrine: Whistleblowing on the Federal Courts of Appeals

Using D.C. Circuit Chevron cases from 1991–1995, Cross and Tiller show that appellate judges obey Supreme Court doctrine selectively, with ideology and panel composition driving when deference is granted.

Who Appeals (and Wins) Patent Infringement Cases?

Using a linked dataset of district court suits and Federal Circuit decisions, this study shows that few patent cases reach appeal, practicing companies appeal and win more than PAEs, and defendants succeed disproportionately when they choose to appeal.

Judge Specific Differences in Chapter 11 and Firm Outcomes

Exploiting random case assignment, this working paper shows that systematic pro-debtor or pro-creditor tendencies of bankruptcy judges materially alter Chapter 11 outcomes and firms’ post-bankruptcy performance.

Whither Justice? Judicial Capacity Constraints Worsens Trial and Litigants’ Outcomes

Rao shows that judicial vacancies in Indian trial courts significantly delay cases, raise dismissal rates, and disproportionately damage the economic health of plaintiff firms, especially smaller ones.

Identifying Judicial Empathy: Does Having Daughters Cause Judges to Rule for Women’s Issues?

Using a quasi-random natural experiment based on child gender, the study shows that U.S. Courts of Appeals judges with at least one daughter, particularly Republican men, are more likely to vote in a feminist or pro women’s direction in gender-related civil cases, with no comparable effect in other areas of law.