請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/19794完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 陳恭平 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-Hsiang Cheng | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 鄭宇翔 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T02:19:31Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2015-09-17 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2015-08-20 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | [1] 劉尚志、林三元、宋皇志，〈走出繼受，邁向立論：法學實證研究之發展〉，《科技法學評論》，三卷，頁一 (2006)。
[2] 黃國昌，〈法學實證研究方法初探〉，《月旦法學雜誌》Vol. 175 (2009)。 [3] 姜世明，《民事訴訟法基礎論》第六版，頁260-276 (2013)。 [4] 李木貴，《民事訴訟法入門講義》頁4-1 – 5-36 (2010) [5] Atkins, Burton M. (1991). “Party Capability Theory as an Explanation for Intervention Behavior in the English Court of Appeal,” 35 American Journal of Political Science 881–903. [6] Brace, Paul, and Melinda G. Hall (2001). “”Haves” Versus “Have Nots” in State Supreme Courts: Allocating Docket Space and Wins in Asymmetric Cases,” 35 Law and Society Review 393-417. [7] Dotan, Yoav. (1999). “Do the Haves Still Come Out Ahead? Resource Inequalities in Ideological Courts: The Case of the Israeli High Court of Justice,” 33 Law and Society Review 1059–80. [8] Chen, Kong-Pin, Kuo-Chang Huang, and Chang-Ching Lin. (2015). “Party Capability Versus Court Preference: Why Do the “Haves” Come Out Ahead? – An Empirical Lesson from the Taiwan Supreme Court,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. [9] Eisenberg, Theodore, and Kuo-Chang Huang. (2012). “The Effect of Rules Shifting Supreme Court Jurisdiction from Mandatory to Discretionary—An Empirical Lesson from Taiwan,” 32 International Review of Law and Economics 3–18. [10] Galanter, Marc. (1974). “Why the Haves Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law and Society Review 95–160. [11] Haynie, Stacia L. (1995). “Resource Inequalities and Regional Variation in Litigation Outcomes in the Philippine Supreme Court,” 48 Political Research Quarterly 371–80. [12] Huang, Kuo-Chang. (2008). “How Legal Representation Affects Case Outcome—An Empirical Perspective from Taiwan,” 5 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 197–238. [13] Kagan, Robert A., Bliss Cartwright, Lawrence M. Friedman, and Stanton Wheeler. (1977). “The Business of State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970,” 30 Stanford Law Review 121–56. [14] McCormick, Peter. (1993). “Party Capability Theory and Appellate Success in the Supreme Court of Canada,” 26 Canadian Journal of Political Science 523–40. [15] Sheehan, Reginald S., William Mishler, and Donald R. Songer. (1992). “Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the Supreme Court,” 86 American Political Science Review 464–71. [16] Songer, Donald R., and Reginald S. Sheehan. (1992). “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals,” 36 American Journal of Political Science 235–58. [17] Wanner, Craig. (1974). “The Public Ordering of Private Relations, Part One: Initiating Civil Cases in Urban Trial Courts,” 8 Law and Society Review 421–40. [18] Wheeler, Stanton, Bliss Cartwright, Robert A. Kagan, and Lawrence M. Friedman. (1987). “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970,” 21 Law and Society Review 403–45. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/19794 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 接續Chen et al. (2015)，我們以台灣最高法院民國97年至民國98年台上字兩千餘筆民事案件的資料為例，證實除了訴訟雙方身分與資源不對等能夠左右訴訟結果之外，法庭偏好也是一個關鍵因素。在本研究中，我們加入最高法院法官的年資進入迴歸模型，發現審判長法官年資對上訴案件的通過率有顯著負面影響。另一方面我們放入審判長法官年資與上訴人身分的交互作用項，發現資深程度不同的法官對於不同類型的上訴人有不同的偏好程度。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T02:19:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-104-R01323032-1.pdf: 2468940 bytes, checksum: 198e3c48990430acb313530eeac1ecd4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 錄
口試委員會審定書………………………………………………………………………………i 誌謝……………………………………………………………………………………………………..ii 中文摘要……………………………………………………………………………………………..iii 英文摘要……………………………………………………………………………………………..iv 第一章 緒論 1.1 研究動機與目的………………………………………….………………………..1 1.2 研究背景…………………………………………………………….…………………3 1.3 論文架構……………………………………………………………………….………4 第二章 資料概述與研究方法 2.1 資料概述…………………………………………………………………………………..5 2.1.1 資料來源…………………………………………………………………………5 2.1.2 敘述統計量……………………………………………..………..……………6 2.2研究方法……………………….…………………………………..……………..……..10 第三章 實證結果 3.1 訴訟人類型與委任律師特性………………………………………..…………11 3.1.1 訴訟人聘任律師之人數與經驗……………..….………….……….11 3.1.2 四種類型訴訟人交叉訴訟結果………………….………..……….17 3.1.3 計量分析……………………………………..……………….……………….21 3.2 法庭的角色……………………………………………………….…….…….………..26 3.2.1 審判長法官年資…………………………………………….…..…………26 3.2.2 法庭偏好………………………………………………………….……..…….29 第四章 結論 4.1 討論……………………………….…………………………………………………………35 4.2 結論…………………………………………….……………..……………….……………35 參考文獻……………………………………..….……….…………..…………………37 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 法庭偏好是否影響判決結果？--來自台灣最高法院案例的實證分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Does Court Preference Have an Impact on the Judgement?The Case of the Taiwan Supreme Court | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 103-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 賴孚權,林常青 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 台灣最高法院,民事,上訴,法庭偏好,審判長法官, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | TSC,civil appeals,party capability,court preference,presiding judge, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 38 | |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2015-08-20 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 經濟學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 經濟學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-104-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.41 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。