Data on Shareholder Oppression

Shareholder oppression laws set out to protect minority shareholders in closely held corporations. As the scope and contours of these protections are notoriously opaque, however, related litigation is typically time-consuming, fact-sensitive, and protracted.

In a recent paper, An Empirical Analysis of Shareholder Oppression Law, the authors, Benjamin Means (S. Carolina) et al., set out to bring data to the shareholder oppression doctrine. To this end, the paper levers data from 850 shareholder oppression opinions decided nationwide from January 2010 through July 2021.

Data on Asset Forfeitures

Government extractions of assets through forfeiture remain an increasingly contested topic. Asset forfeitures are often significant for people entangled with the criminal justice system. Helping complicate motivations for forfeitures include the financial implications for federal, state, and local governments that generate revenue from forfeitures.

While governmental forfeiture continues to receive scholarly attention, much of the attention lacks data. However, a recent paper, Asset Forfeiture and Inequality, by Stephanie Holmes Didwania (Northwestern), explores forfeitures with the benefit of Department of Justice data on roughly 1.2 million federal asset forfeitures between 1998 and 2019 which are matched to county-level population data over that period. The paper's main take-away involves the claim that governments use asset forfeiture in ways that exacerbate inequality. An excerpted abstract follows.

More on the RE v. FE Specification Debate

In the xtivreg world, for example, while Sargan-Hansen testing helps assess instrumental variable efficacy, researchers also typically confront the question about whether a FE or RE specification is appropriate. Such a question was posed recently on the StataList (here) and an initial response echoes prior suggestions that focus on the Mundlak approach. Mundlak advances an alternative approach to the Hausman test insofar as, unlike the latter, the Mundlak approach may be used when the errors are heteroskedastic or have intragroup correlation. (An earlier discussion goes into greater detail.)

Moving SPSS files to Stata

For the underlying datasets themselves, movement across various software platforms are most easily achieved via third-party software (I've used StatTransfer for decades). Migrating command (or setup or do) files across platforms, however, typically takes a bit more work. A recent discussion on the StataList (click here) walks through coding suggestions for a migration from SPSS to Stata.

Data on Malingering in Insanity Cases Over Time

A steady decline in insanity claims by defendants in criminal cases over time juxtaposes with a concurrent increase in claims that defendants are "malingering" or "feigning" insanity or mental illness in the service of an acquittal or a reduced sentence. Neuroscientific evidence, on both sides, features prominently in these trends. And in this setting, conventional wisdom implies that state evidence introduced relating to a claim of defendant malingering may exert out-sized (negative) influence on a defendant's insanity claim.

CELS 2026 -- Submission Deadline Extension

Call for Papers -- Deadline Extension

Conference on Empirical Legal Studies

October 2-3, 2026

 

The 2026 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies (CELS) is now accepting submissions. CELS will consider empirical papers spanning all areas of empirical legal studies. Authors are encouraged to submit works-in-progress; however, submissions should be completed drafts that include principal results. Submitted papers must be unpublished and expected to be unpublished at the time of the conference.

The paper submission deadline has been extended to Monday, June 22, 2026 (11:59 PM Central Daylight Time). The deadline will not be extended further. There is no charge for submissions.

To submit a paper, please click here.

If you have any questions about the submissions process, please contact the conference organizers at: celsnorthwestern2026@gmail.com. 

Data on Judicial Recognition of Multiparent Families

Many topics in family law, for both obvious and perhaps less than obvious reasons, garner a bit more "heat than light." As well, family law topics are comparatively under-explored empirically. A recent paper by Douglas NeJamie (Yale) and Courtney Joslin (UC Davis), The Legal Recognition of Multiparent Families: Findings from an Empirical Study, breaks from tradition as it brings data to questions surrounding the legal recognition of multiparent families.

The paper levers two datasets, including all electronically available judicial decisions (through 2022) engaging with multiparent statutes as well as "judicial decisions applying a functional parent doctrine over four decades." When it comes to the judicial decisions themselves, Figure 6 (below) makes clear that judicial activity, while growing, is an emerging trend.

Court-Sealed Documents

American courts, by tradition and for all the obvious reasons, reflexively tilt in a direction that favors public access to judicial records. As such, the law of sealing is "famously strict, at least on paper." In most Circuits, a trial court can grant a party’s motion to seal only if the party can demonstrate a compelling interest favoring secrecy. Moreover, a district court must articulate the basis for a decision to seal a document.

In [Sealed Document]: An Empirical Study of Sealing Orders in the Federal Courts, Nora Freeman Engstrom (Stanford) et al. bring data to how the law of sealing operates "on the ground." What they find, based on data from over 2 million federal civil cases, challenges the notion that sealing practices are operating as designed. Figure 3 (below) illustrates that among cases that reach summary judgment approximately 10% included at least one court-sealed document. To be sure, however, assessments of whether a 10% figure comports with a "famously strict" threshold are necessarily subjective. An excerpted abstract follows Figure 3.

Charging "Handoffs" Between Police and Prosecutors

While prosecutorial charging decisions occupy a central position in the American criminal legal system, data access has severely constrained related empirical research. In a recent paper, The Police-Prosecutor Charging Decision, Shima Baradaran Baughman et al. (BYU) report initial descriptive results that benefit from "rare" 2019 charging data from a single (anonymous) "mid-sized" U.S. county. 

Specifically, the data include a "random sample of 414 unique cases files and 1340 charges [from 2019]. For every charge, the dataset links three decision points: (1) the offense(s) recommended by the arresting agency, (2) the offense(s) the prosecutor filed, and (3) the disposition for that charge, indicating how the case was concluded whether by plea agreement, dismissal, a guilty verdict of the original charge, or a guilty verdict of a lesser charge.” Linking police-recommended charges, prosecutor-filed charges, and charge-level dispositions within the same cases provides an unusual glimpse into the critical arrest-to-filing transition.

One Local Prosecutor "Paradox"

In many ways, local prosecutors perform often critical roles in the nation's criminal justice system. While a recent, albeit small, surge of "reform" prosecutors already shows signs of abating, their emergence emphasizes a paradox. As Joshua Boston (BGSU--poli sci) et al. note in their recent paper, The Prosecutor Paradox: Understanding the Public’s Low Knowledge About Chief Local Prosecutors, despite the considerable discretion afforded to local prosecutors too often voters know very little about them. Moreover, prosecutors' enormous electoral incumbency advantage only compounds problems incident to voter information deficits. While Boston et al. engage survey data to make their case, one key finding includes: "Our data – viewed in concert with existing scholarly evidence on prosecutorial elections and in the context of our motivating examples above – suggest that prosecutorial elections are not effective in providing accountability in most cases." The paper's abstract follows.