English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Using citation data from the Supreme Court's 1984 and 1990 Terms, this study tests three models of judicial dynamics. The first model posits that the extent of an opinion’s importance to the law, as measured by how frequently it is cited by courts and commentators, is determined by a host of relatively small factors. This model predicts a normal, bell-shaped curve of citation frequencies. The second model posits that judges have bounded rationality and strong attachments to existing rules, leading them to practice "normal science" most of the time with occasional "paradigm shifts." In empirical studies by various social scientists, this kind of model has been found to produce frequency distributions that are roughly bell-shaped but have a characteristic known as "leptokurtosis." The third model stems from complexity theory (also known as chaos theory or fractal geometry. This type of model predicts a "power" curve that is characteristic of many social and natural processes, such as earthquake severity. Because earthquakes provide such a vivid metaphor for legal change, this can be called the "tectonic" model of legal dynamics.

Earthquakes and Tremors in Statutory Interpretation: An Empirical Study of the Dynamics of Interpretation