Where a case is heard shapes who can win it.

Evidence

Although both proponents and opponents of this reform are concerned about the just and efficient operation of the federal judicial system, this is not all that is involved. Because the procedural rules in federal and state courts differ, attorneys may believe their clients would have a better chance of presenting their case or winning in one forum than in another. … Some litigants seek to have their cases heard in federal court and others in state court, indicating a perception that where a case is heard makes a difference,]Finally, the transfer of diversity cases to state courts would increase state court caseloads. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 328

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Congress created 94 federal district courts confined to single states. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 332; Litigated cases self-select to those where both sides have plausible legal arguments — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 253; Case negotiations occur in the shadow of the law set by trial outcomes (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• One side’s refusal to follow jury-selection research can shape a trial’s outcome #exemplifies (0.82) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 835
• Litigated cases self-select to those where both sides have plausible legal arguments #complicates (0.80) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 253
• Judge attributes beyond the law shape judicial outcomes #qualifies (0.80) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 746
• Judicial decisions blend clear-law obedience with attitude-driven choice in ambiguous cases #expands (0.78) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1365
• Case negotiations occur in the shadow of the law set by trial outcomes #qualifies (0.75)