The difference in the predicted probability of
success on a motion for summary judgment based on a brief's readability score is much less stark in our state court sample than in our federal court sample.
In reviewing the factors in Rule 57.01 (1) and the relevant case law, Justice Healey noted that the applicant had total
success on the motion for summary judgment and that there had been insufficient evidence to support the respondents» positions.
Not exact matches
Researchers might conduct correlational studies of existing cases, as Long and Christenson did in their study of readability and
success on appeal241 or as Moss did in his mixed - methods study of employment discrimination
summary judgment motions.242 Or they might conduct an experiment asking participants to simulated cases, as in the proposed modification of Chestek's study of preferences
for narrative elements in briefs.243 Alternatively, researchers could conduct qualitative studies of decision - makers believe that legal writing influences their decisions.
Our logit model showed that a moving party counsel's status as a repeat player before the
motion judge correlated significantly with
success on the
summary judgment motion.117 However, when we also controlled
for whether the non-moving party was a repeat player before the
motion judge, the moving party correlation and the non-moving party correlation were no longer significant.