BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//events.la.psu.edu//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/New_York BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20201101T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=11;BYDAY=1SU END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20200308T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=2SU END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT UID:4742-a07f2b52e42fc2bd904f2eb49888d1ab@events.la.psu.edu DTSTAMP:20260414T050910Z DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20211112T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20211112T113000 SUMMARY:Political Science Colloquium: Rachael Hinkle DESCRIPTION:Rachael Hinkle\, a political scientist from University at Bu ffalo\, The State University of New York\n\n&ldquo\;Invisible Losers: Th e Fate of &lsquo\;Have-nots&rsquo\; \;in the U.S. Courts of Appeals& rdquo\;\n\n \;\n\nThe U.S Courts of Appeals both formulate legal pol icy and provide a forum for losing litigants to pursue an appeal. In ord er to keep up with an increasing number of overall appeals\, yet still p rovide quality legal analysis\, circuit courts developed the practice of designating some opinions as unpublished. Such opinions are not binding legal precedent. Scholars focused on policy therefore understandably av oid the difficult task of grappling with the massive number of unpublishe d opinions. However\, unpublished opinions impact the lives of those dir ectly involved just as much as published opinions. As such\, the often-i nvisible cases that lead to unpublished opinions are well worth studying . Rachael Hinkle takes up this task by exploring the impact of Galanter& #39\;s famous repeat player theory in the context of the federal circuit courts. There is evidence that litigants with more resources come out a head in published circuit cases. I examine whether this disparity might be even greater in size within unpublished cases\, when compared to publ ished cases. To answer this question\, I use an original dataset of all virtually all circuit opinions on the merits of a case from 2002 to 2012 . This dataset combines case text (including the participating judges)\, the rich detail available in the Federal Judicial Centers Appeals Integ rated Database\, and hand coding of litigants according to resource type .\n\n \;\n\nRachael K. Hinkle is an associate professor in the Depar tment of Political Science at the University at Buffalo\, The State Univ ersity of New York \;and a research Fellow at the Baldy Center for L aw and Social Policy. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics w ith particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development fro m the content of judicial opinions and other legal texts through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Her work appears in places s uch as the American Journal of Political Science\, Journal of Politics\, Journal of Legal Analysis\, Law and Society Review\, and Justice System Journal. Rachael completed her doctorate in political science at Washin gton University in St. Louis in 2013. Prior to that she earned a juris d octorate and clerked in the U.S. District Court for the District of Ariz ona and the Sixth Circuit of the U.S. Courts of Appeals.\n\nFor more det ails: https://events.la.psu.edu/event/plsc-colloquium_1112/ X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:
Rachael Hinkl e, a political scientist from University at Buffalo, The State Universit y of New York
“Invisible Losers: The Fate of ‘Have -nots’ in the U.S. Courts of Appeals”
 < /div>
The U.S Courts of Appeals both formulate legal policy and prov ide a forum for losing litigants to pursue an appeal. In order to keep u p with an increasing number of overall appeals, yet still provide qualit y legal analysis, circuit courts developed the practice of designating s ome opinions as unpublished. Such opinions are not binding legal precede nt. Scholars focused on policy therefore understandably avoid the difficu lt task of grappling with the massive number of unpublished opinions. Ho wever, unpublished opinions impact the lives of those directly involved just as much as published opinions. As such, the often-invisible cases t hat lead to unpublished opinions are well worth studying. Rachael Hinkle takes up this task by exploring the impact of Galanter's famous rep eat player theory in the context of the federal circuit courts. There is evidence that litigants with more resources come out ahead in published circuit cases. I examine whether this disparity might be even greater i n size within unpublished cases, when compared to published cases. To an swer this question, I use an original dataset of all virtually all circu it opinions on the merits of a case from 2002 to 2012. This dataset comb ines case text (including the participating judges), the rich detail ava ilable in the Federal Judicial Centers Appeals Integrated Database, and hand coding of litigants according to resource type.
 

Rachael K. Hinkle is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York and a research Fellow at the Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with par ticular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the c ontent of judicial opinions and other legal texts through the use of com putational text analytic techniques. Her work appears in places such as the American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics , Journal of Legal Analysis, Law and Society Review, a nd Justice System Journal. Rachael completed her doctorate in pol itical science at Washington University in St. Louis in 2013. Prior to t hat she earned a juris doctorate and clerked in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and the Sixth Circuit of the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

For more details: https://events.la.psu.edu/event/plsc-coll oquium_1112/

END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR