RAND's divisions conduct research on a uniquely broad front for clients around the globe.
Most relevant regions
Research Summary
Jan 1, 1996
Makes an empirical contribution to the policy debate over tort reform.
Research
This report describes all civil jury verdicts reached from 1985 to 1994 in the state courts of general jurisdiction in 15 jurisdictions across the nation and identifies trends in these verdicts.
Expert Insights
Jan 1, 1995
This publication contains the written statement of Robert MacCoun submitted on July 27, 1995, to the Judiciary Committee of the California State Senate.
Jan 1, 1993
There is a wide-spread perception that America's tort system is biased against so-called deep-pocket defendants. This paper summarizes what we know and don't know about deep-pocket biases.
Jan 1, 1987
This case study describes an interview conducted with the jury that decided an asbestos products liability case in Texas in 1984.
Advocates the use of systematic empirical research on civil jury behavior as an important tool in the policymaking process. The author discusses the methods that have been used for studying jury behavior,...
Drawing on social and cognitive psychology and on criminal jury research, Robert MacCoun outlines approaches that can provide data essential to legislative and judicial policymakers who seek to understand how civil juries arrive at decisions.
Jan 1, 1986
This paper draws on the author's analysis of civil jury verdicts rendered between 1960 and 1979 in Cook County, Illinois, and San Francisco, California.
This paper is extracted from the Director's Report in the Institute for Civil Justice's (ICJ) Report on the First Six Program Years, April 1980-March 1986. It reviews findings of the ICJ's research on the civil justice system regarding (1) civil jury...
Jan 1, 1985
Examines the effect of the comparative negligence law with respect to the increase in awards to plaintiffs who take their case to trial.
Jan 1, 1983
Reports the preliminary results of research which empirically examines issues central to the prejudgment interest policy debate.
