Scholarship@WashULaw

Examining the Perceived Quality of Appellate Review in the Bankruptcy System

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2008

Publication Title

Norton Bankruptcy Law Adviser

Abstract

Commentators have long theorized about the factors that impact the quality of appellate review. In a forthcoming article,1 we examine appeals within the bankruptcy system to test empirically the perceived quality of appellate review within that system and to ascertain whether evidence exists to support the theory behind the quality of appellate review. The appeals structure in bankruptcy provides an excellent setting for such a study since it provides certain litigants the choice to appeal, in the first instance, to one of two distinct appellate tribunals--district courts and Bankruptcy Appellate Panels (BAPs)--whose structural features differ with respect to the theorized qualities of appellate review. We collected data on affirmance rates in and citation rates to appellate bankruptcy opinions issued over a three-year period. Our analyses of the data generally support the notion that BAP decisions are perceived to be of greater quality than district court decisions as measured by (1) affirmance by courts of appeals and (2) citations by other federal courts to the appellate opinions issued by BAPs and district courts. In this essay, we report some general findings from our study with the hope of providing fresh insight into the debate over the desirability of BAPs within the bankruptcy system.

Keywords

Bankruptcy, Appellate Review

Publication Citation

Jonathan Remy Nash & Rafael I. Pardo, Examining the Perceived Quality of Appellate Review in the Bankruptcy System, 8 Norton Bankr. L. Adviser 1 (2008)

Link

Share

COinS