Computational Methods in Legal Analysis

Literature Cited

1. Aletras N, Tsarapatsanis D, Preoţiuc-Pietro D, Lampos V 2016. Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2:e93
   [Google Scholar]
2. Alexander CS, al Jadda K, Feizollahi MJ, Tucker AM 2019. Using text analytics to predict litigation outcomes. See Livermore & Rockmore 2019 275–311
3. Alschner W. 2017. The impact of investment arbitration on investment treaty design: myths versus reality. Yale J. Int. Law 42:1–66
   [Google Scholar]
4. Alschner W, Charlotin D. 2018. The growing complexity of the International Court of Justice's self-citation network. Eur. J. Int. Law 29:83–112
   [Google Scholar]
5. Alschner W, Skougarevskiy D. 2016. Mapping the universe of international investment agreements. J. Int. Econ. Law 19:561–88
   [Google Scholar]
6. Ash E, Chen D. 2018. What kind of judge is Brett Kavanaugh? A quantitative analysis. Cardozo Law Rev. De Novo 2018:70–100
   [Google Scholar]
7. Ash E, Chen D. 2019. Case vectors: spatial representations of the law using document embeddings. See Livermore & Rockmore 2019 313–37
8. Ashley KD. 1990. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
9. Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S. 2009. Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artif. Intell. Law 17:125–65
   [Google Scholar]
10. Badawi AB, Dari-Mattiacci G. 2019. Reference networks and civil codes. See Livermore & Rockmore 2019 339–65
11. Bench-Capon T 1991. Knowledge-Based Systems and Legal Applications San Diego, CA: Academic
12. Bench-Capon T, Araszkiewicz M, Ashley K, Atkinson K, Bex F et al. 2012. A history of AI and law in 50 papers: 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law. Artif. Intell. Law 20:215–319
    [Google Scholar]
13. Betts KD, Jaep KD. 2017. The dawn of fully automated contract drafting: Machine learning breathes new life into a decades-old promise. Duke Law Technol. Rev. 15:216–33
    [Google Scholar]
14. Beuve J, Moszoro MW, Saussier S 2019. Political contestability and public contract rigidity: an analysis of procurement contracts. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 28:316–35
    [Google Scholar]
15. Black RC, Hall MEK, Owens RJ, Ringsmuth EM 2016. The role of emotional language in briefs before the US Supreme Court. J. Law Courts 4:377–407
    [Google Scholar]
16. Black RC, Spriggs JF. 2008. An empirical analysis of the length of U.S. Supreme Court opinions. Houst. Law Rev. 45:621–82
    [Google Scholar]
17. Black RC, Spriggs JF. 2013. The citation and deprecation of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 10:325–58
    [Google Scholar]
18. Black RC, Wedeking J. 2016. The influence of public sentiment on Supreme Court opinion clarity. Law Soc. Rev. 50:703–32
    [Google Scholar]
19. Blei DM. 2012. Probabilistic topic models. Commun. ACM 55:77–84
    [Google Scholar]
20. Blei DM, Lafferty J. 2007. A correlated topic model of science. Ann. Appl. Stat. 1:17–35
    [Google Scholar]
21. Bommarito M, Katz DM. 2017. Measuring and modeling the U.S. regulatory ecosystem. J. Stat. Phys. 168:1125–35
    [Google Scholar]
22. Bommarito MJ, Katz D, Zelner J 2009. Law as a seamless web? Comparison of various network representations of the United States Supreme Court corpus (1791–2005). Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law,234–35 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Branting LK. 1991. Building explanations from rules and structured cases. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 34:797–837
    [Google Scholar]
24. Brüninghaus S, Ashley KD. 1997. Finding factors. Learning to classify case opinions under abstract fact categories. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law123–31 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Busch ML, Pelc KJ. 2019. Words matter: how WTO rulings handle controversy. Int. Stud. Q. 63:464–76
    [Google Scholar]
26. Carlson K, Livermore MA, Rockmore D 2016. A quantitative analysis of writing style on the U.S. Supreme Court. Wash. Univ. Law Rev. 93:1461–510
    [Google Scholar]
27. Carlson K, Livermore MA, Rockmore D 2020. The problem of data bias in the pool of published U.S. appellate court opinions. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 17:224–61
    [Google Scholar]
28. Carmichael I, Wudel J, Kim M, Jushchuk J 2017. Examining the evolution of legal precedent through citation network analysis. N.C. Law Rev. 96:227–69
    [Google Scholar]
29. Carter DJ, Brown J, Rahmani A 2016. Reading the High Court at a distance: topic modelling the legal subject matter and judicial activity of the High Court of Australia, 1903–2015. Univ. N.S.W. Law J. 39:1300–54
    [Google Scholar]
30. Casey AJ, Niblett A. 2017. The death of rules and standards. Indiana Law J 92:1401–47
    [Google Scholar]
31. Caspi A, Stiglitz EH. 2020. Measuring discourse by algorithm. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 62:105863
    [Google Scholar]
32. Choi SJ, Gulati GM. 2005. Which judges write their opinions (and should we care). Fla. State Univ. Law Rev. 32:1076–122
    [Google Scholar]
33. Choi SJ, Gulati GM. 2008a. Bias in judicial citations: A window into the behavior of judges. J. Legal Stud. 37:87–129
    [Google Scholar]
34. Choi SJ, Gulati GM. 2008b. Trading votes for reasoning: covering in judicial opinions. South. Calif. Law Rev. 81:735–79
    [Google Scholar]
35. Clark TS. 2017. Measuring law. Routledge Handbook of Judicial Behavior RM Howard, KA Randazzo 84–94 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
36. Clark TS, Lauderdale B. 2010. Locating Supreme Court opinions in doctrine space. Am. J. Political Sci. 54:871–90
    [Google Scholar]
37. Clark TS, Lauderdale BE. 2012. The genealogy of law. Political Anal 20:329–50
    [Google Scholar]
38. Coglianese C. 2004. E-rulemaking: information technology and the regulatory process. Adm. Law Rev. 56:353–402
    [Google Scholar]
39. Contissa G, Docter K, Lagioia F, Lippi M, Micklitz HW et al. 2018. Automated processing of privacy policies under the EU General Data Protection Regulation. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems M Palmirani 51–60 Amsterdam: IOS
    [Google Scholar]
40. Contos G, Guyton J, Langetieg P, Vigil M 2011. Individual taxpayer compliance burden: the role of assisted methods in taxpayers response to increasing complexity. IRS Research Bulletin: Proceedings of the IRS Research Conference 2010 ME Gangi, A Plumley 191–220 Washington, DC: Intern. Revenue Serv.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Copus R, Hübert R, Laqueur H 2019. Big data, machine learning, and the credibility revolution in empirical legal studies. See Livermore & Rockmore 2019 21–57
42. Corley PC. 2008. The Supreme Court and opinion content: the influence of parties’ briefs. Political Res. Q. 61:468–78
    [Google Scholar]
43. Corley PC, Collins PM, Calvin B 2011. Lower court influence on U.S. Supreme Court opinion content. J. Politics 73:31–44
    [Google Scholar]
44. Cross FB. 2012. The ideology of Supreme Court opinions and citations. Iowa Law Rev 97:693–751
    [Google Scholar]
45. Cross FB, Pennebaker JW. 2014. The language of the Roberts Court. Mich. State Law Rev. 2014:853–94
    [Google Scholar]
46. Cross FB, Spriggs JF. 2010. The most important (and best) Supreme Court opinions and justices. Emory Law J 60:407–502
    [Google Scholar]
47. Dadgostari F, Guim M, Beling PA, Livermore MA, Rockmore DN 2020. Modeling law search as prediction. Artif. Intell. Law. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09261-5
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
48. Daniels JD, Rissland EL. 1997. Finding legally relevant passages in case opinions. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law39–46 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Derlén M, Lindholm J. 2013. Goodbye van Gend en Loos, hello Bosman? Using network analysis to measure the importance of individual CJEU judgments. Eur. Law J. 20:667–87
    [Google Scholar]
50. Derlén M, Lindholm J. 2017. Is it good law? Network analysis and the CJEU's internal market jurisprudence. J. Int. Econ. Law 20:257–77
    [Google Scholar]
51. Dumas M. 2019. Detecting ideology in judicial language. See Livermore & Rockmore 2019 383–405
52. Evans M, McIntosh W, Lin J, Cates C 2007. Recounting the courts? Applying automated content analysis to enhance empirical legal research. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 4:1007–39
    [Google Scholar]
53. Fagan F. 2015. From policy confusion to doctrinal clarity: successor liability from the perspective of big data. Va. Law Bus. Rev. 9:391–451
    [Google Scholar]
54. Fagan F, Levmore S. 2019. The impact of artificial intelligence on rules, standards, and judicial discretion. South. Calif. Law Rev. 19:1–36
    [Google Scholar]
55. Feldman A. 2017. A brief assessment of Supreme Court opinion language, 1946–2013. Miss. Law J. 86:105–49
    [Google Scholar]
56. Feldman A. 2019. Opinion clarity in state and federal courts. See Livermore & Rockmore 2019 407–30
57. Fowler JH, Jeon S. 2008. The authority of Supreme Court precedent. Soc. Netw. 30:16–30
    [Google Scholar]
58. Fowler JH, Johnson TR, Spriggs JF, Jeon S, Wahlbeck PJ 2007. Network analysis and the law: measuring the legal importance of precedents at the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Anal 15:324–46
    [Google Scholar]
59. Frankenreiter J. 2017. The politics of citations at the ECJ—policy preferences of EU member state governments and the citation behavior of judges at the European Court of Justice. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 14:813–57
    [Google Scholar]
60. Frankenreiter J. 2019. Writing style and legal traditions. See Livermore & Rockmore 2019 153–90
61. Funk K, Mullen LA. 2018. The spine of American law: digital text analysis and U.S. legal practice. Am. Hist. Rev. 123:132–64
    [Google Scholar]
62. Gardner A. 1987. An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
63. Goelzhauser G, Cann DM. 2014. Judicial independence and opinion clarity on State Supreme Courts. State Politics Policy Q 14:123–41
    [Google Scholar]
64. Gonçalves T, Quaresma P. 2005. Is linguistic information relevant for the classification of legal texts?. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law168–76 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Grimmer J, Stewart BM. 2013. Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Anal 21:267–97
    [Google Scholar]
66. Hadfield GK. 2008. Legal barriers to innovation: the growing economic cost of professional control over corporate legal markets. Stanford Law Rev 60:1689–732
    [Google Scholar]
67. Hausladen CI, Schubert MH, Ash E 2020. Text classification of ideological direction in judicial opinions. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 62:105903
    [Google Scholar]
68. Hinkle RK, Martin AD, Shaub JD, Tiller EH 2012. A positive theory and empirical analysis of strategic word choice in district court opinions. J. Legal Anal. 4:407–44
    [Google Scholar]
69. Hitt MP. 2016. Measuring precedent in a judicial hierarchy. Law Soc. Rev. 50:57–81
    [Google Scholar]
70. Johnson SM. 2014. The changing discourse of the Supreme Court. Univ. N.H. Law Rev. 12:29–68
    [Google Scholar]
71. Katz DM, Bommarito M. 2014. Measuring the complexity of the law: the United States Code. Artif. Intell. Law 22:337–74
    [Google Scholar]
72. Katz DM, Bommarito MJ, Blackman J 2017. A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States. PLOS ONE 12:e0174698
    [Google Scholar]
73. Kleinberg J, Ludwig J, Mullainathan S, Obermeyer Z 2015. Prediction policy problems. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 105:491–95
    [Google Scholar]
74. Klingenstein S, Hitchcock T, DeDeo S 2014. The civilizing process in London's Old Bailey. PNAS 111:9419–24
    [Google Scholar]
75. Kosnik L. 2014. Determinants of contract completeness: an environmental regulatory application. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 37:198–208
    [Google Scholar]
76. Langford M, Behn D, Lie R 2020. Stylometric analysis with machine learning: the case of investment treaty arbitration. Computational Legal Studies: The Promise and Challenge of Data-Driven Research, R Whalen Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. In press
    [Google Scholar]
77. Larsson O, Naurin D, Derlén M, Lindholm J 2017. Speaking law to power: the strategic use of precedent of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Comp. Political Stud. 50:879–907
    [Google Scholar]
78. Lauderdale BE, Clark TS. 2014. Scaling politically meaningful dimensions using texts and votes. Am. J. Political Sci. 58:754–71
    [Google Scholar]
79. Law DS. 2016. Constitutional archetypes. Tex. Law Rev. 95:153–243
    [Google Scholar]
80. Law DS. 2018. The global language of human rights: a computational linguistic analysis. Law Ethics Hum. Rights 12:111–50
    [Google Scholar]
81. Law DS, Zaring D. 2010. Law versus ideology: the Supreme Court and the use of legislative history. William Mary Law Rev 51:1653–747
    [Google Scholar]
82. Lee TR, Mouritsen SC. 2018. Judging ordinary meaning. Yale Law J 127:788–879
    [Google Scholar]
83. Leibon G, Livermore MA, Harder R, Riddell A, Rockmore D 2018. Bending the law: geometric tools for quantifying influence in the multinetwork of legal opinions. Artif. Intell. Law 26:145–67
    [Google Scholar]
84. Leonard ME, Ross JV. 2016. Understanding the length of State Supreme Court opinions. Am. Politics Res. 44:710–33
    [Google Scholar]
85. Li W, Azar P, Larochelle D, Hill P, Cox J et al. 2013. Using algorithmic attribution techniques to determine authorship in unsigned judicial opinions. Stanford Technol. Law Rev. 16:503–33
    [Google Scholar]
86. Lippi M, Palka P, Contissa G, Lagioia F, Micklitz HW et al. 2017. Automated detection of unfair clauses in online consumer contracts. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems A Wyner, G Casini 145–54 Amsterdam: IOS
    [Google Scholar]
87. Livermore MA, Eidelman V, Grom B 2018. Computationally assisted regulatory participation. Notre Dame Law Rev 93:977–1034
    [Google Scholar]
88. Livermore MA, Riddell AB, Rockmore DN 2017. The Supreme Court and the judicial genre. Ariz. Law Rev. 59:837–901
    [Google Scholar]
89. Livermore MA, Rockmore DL 2019. Law as Data: Computation, Text, and the Future of Legal Analysis Santa Fe: Santa Fe Inst. Press
90. Lupu Y, Fowler JH. 2013. Strategic citations to precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. J. Legal Stud. 42:151–86
    [Google Scholar]
91. Lupu Y, Voeten E. 2012. Precedent in international courts: a network analysis of case citations by the European Court of Human Rights. Br. J. Political Sci. 42:413–39
    [Google Scholar]
92. Macey J, Mitts J. 2014. Finding order in the morass: the three real justifications for piercing the corporate veil. Cornell Law Rev 100:99–156
    [Google Scholar]
93. Marotta-Wurgler F, Taylor R. 2013. Set in stone? Change and innovation in consumer standard-form contracts. NYU Law Rev 88:240–85
    [Google Scholar]
94. McGuire KT, Vanberg G. 2005. Mapping the policies of the U.S. Supreme Court: data, opinions, and constitutional law. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Washington, DC:
95. McLane J. 2019. Boilerplate and the impact of disclosure in securities dealmaking. Vanderbilt Law Rev 72:191–295
    [Google Scholar]
96. Mikolov T, Sutskever I, Chen K, Corrado GS, Dean J 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. NIPS'13: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2 CJC Burges, L Bottou, M Welling, Z Ghahramani, KQ Weinberger 3111–19 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
97. Miller JS. 2019. Law's semantic self-portrait: discerning doctrine with co-citation networks and keywords. Univ. Pittsbg. Law Rev. 81:1–62
    [Google Scholar]
98. Moszoro M, Spiller PT, Stolorz S 2016. Rigidity of public contracts. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 13:396–427
    [Google Scholar]
99. Moretti F. 2013. Distant Reading London: Verso
100. Mullainathan S, Spiess J. 2017. Machine learning: an applied econometric approach. J. Econ. Perspect. 31:87–106
     [Google Scholar]
101. Niblett A. 2010. Do judges cherry pick precedents to justify extra-legal decisions? A statistical examination. Md. Law Rev. 70:101–38
     [Google Scholar]
102. Niblett A, Yoon AH. 2015. Judicial disharmony: a study of dissent. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 42:60–71
     [Google Scholar]
103. Nyarko J. 2019. We'll see you in…court! The lack of arbitration clauses in international contracts. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 58:6–24
     [Google Scholar]
104. Nystrom EC, Tanenhaus DS. 2016a. The future of digital legal history: no magic, no silver bullets. Am. J. Leg. Hist. 56:150–67
     [Google Scholar]
105. Nystrom EC, Tanenhaus DS. 2016b.. “ Let's change the law”: Arkansas and the puzzle of juvenile justice reform in the 1990s. Law Hist. Rev. 34:957–97
     [Google Scholar]
106. Oldfather CM, Bockhorst JP, Dimmer BP 2012. Triangulating judicial responsiveness: automated content analysis, judicial opinions, and the methodology of legal scholarship. Fla. Law Rev. 64:1189–224
     [Google Scholar]
107. Olsen HP, Küçüksu A. 2017. Finding hidden patterns in ECtHR's case law: on how citation network analysis can improve our knowledge of ECtHR's Article 14 practice. Int. J. Discrim. Law 17:4–22
     [Google Scholar]
108. Owens RJ, Wedeking JP. 2011. Justices and legal clarity: analyzing the complexity of US Supreme Court opinions. Law Soc. Rev. 45:1027–61
     [Google Scholar]
109. Patton D, Smith JL. 2017. Lawyer, interrupted: gender bias in oral arguments at the US Supreme Court. J. Law Courts 5:337–61
     [Google Scholar]
110. Pelc KJ. 2014. The politics of precedent in international law: a social network application. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 108:546–64
     [Google Scholar]
111. Petrov S. 2016. Announcing SyntaxNet: The world's most accurate parser goes open source. Google Research Blog May 12. https://research.googleblog.com/2016/05/announcing-syntaxnet-worlds-most.html
     [Google Scholar]
112. Potter RA. 2019. Bending the Rules: Procedural Politicking in the Bureaucracy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
113. Pozen DE, Talley EL, Nyarko J 2019. A computational analysis of constitutional polarization. Cornell Law Rev 105:1–84
     [Google Scholar]
114. Quinn KM, Monroe BL, Colaresi M, Crespin MH, Radev DR 2010. How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs. Am J. Political Sci. 54:209–28
     [Google Scholar]
115. Raskin M. 2017. The law and legality of smart contracts. Georgetown Law Technol. Rev. 2:305–28
     [Google Scholar]
116. Rauterberg G, Talley E. 2017. Contracting out of the fiduciary duty of loyalty: an empirical analysis of corporate opportunity waivers. Columbia Law Rev 117:1075–151
     [Google Scholar]
117. Remus D, Levy F. 2017. Can robots be lawyers? Computers, lawyers, and the practice of law. Georgetown J. Leg. Ethics 30:501–58
     [Google Scholar]
118. Rice D. 2014. The impact of Supreme Court activity on the judicial agenda. Law Soc. Rev. 48:63–90
     [Google Scholar]
119. Rice D. 2017. Issue divisions and US Supreme Court decision making. J. Politics 79:210–22
     [Google Scholar]
120. Rice D. 2019. Measuring the issue content of Supreme Court opinions. J. Law Courts 7:107–27
     [Google Scholar]
121. Rice D, Rhodes JH, Nteta T 2019. Racial bias in legal language. Res. Politics 6:1–7
     [Google Scholar]
122. Rice D, Zorn C. 2019. Corpus-based dictionaries for sentiment analysis of specialized vocabularies. Political Sci. Res. Meth. 67:1–16
     [Google Scholar]
123. Rissland EL, Ashley KD, Loui RP 2003. AI and law: a fruitful synergy. Artif. Intell. 150:1–15
     [Google Scholar]
124. Rissland EL, Skalak DB. 1991. CAARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 34:839–87
     [Google Scholar]
125. Roberts ME, Stewart BM, Nielsen RA 2020. Adjusting for confounding with text matching. Am. J. Political Sci. In press
     [Google Scholar]
126. Roberts ME, Stewart B, Tingley D 2016. Navigating the local modes of big data: the case of topic models. Computational Social Science, Discovery and Prediction RM Alvarez 51–97 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
127. Rockmore DN, Fang C, Foti NJ, Ginsburg T, Krakauer DC 2017. The cultural evolution of national constitutions. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 69:483–94
     [Google Scholar]
128. Romney CW. 2016. Using vector space models to understand the circulation of habeas corpus in Hawai'i. 1852–92. Law Hist. Rev. 34:999–1026
     [Google Scholar]
129. Rosenthal JS, Yoon AH. 2011. Detecting multiple authorship of United States Supreme Court legal decisions using function words. Ann. Appl. Stat. 5:283–308
     [Google Scholar]
130. Ruger TW, Kim PT, Martin AD, Quinn KM 2004. The Supreme Court forecasting project: legal and political science approaches to predicting Supreme Court decisionmaking. Columbia Law Rev 104:1150–209
     [Google Scholar]
131. Ruhl JB, Katz DM. 2015. Measuring, monitoring, and managing legal complexity. Iowa Law Rev 100:191–244
     [Google Scholar]
132. Ruhl JB, Katz DM, Bommarito M 2017. Harnessing legal complexity. Science 355:1377–78
     [Google Scholar]
133. Ruhl JB, Nay J, Gilligan JM 2018. Topic modeling the president: conventional and computational methods. George Washington Law Rev 86:1243–315
     [Google Scholar]
134. Sadl U, Olsen HP. 2017. Can quantitative methods complement doctrinal legal studies? Using citation network and corpus linguistic analysis to understand international courts. Leiden J. Int. Law 30:327–49
     [Google Scholar]
135. Schmitz AJ. 2019. Expanding access to remedies through e-court initiatives. Buffalo Law Rev 67:89–163
     [Google Scholar]
136. Sergot MJ, Sadri F, Kowalsi RA, Kriwaczek F, Hammond P, Cory HT 1986. The British Nationality Act as a logic program. Comm. ACM 29:370–86
     [Google Scholar]
137. Smith JL. 2014. Law, fact, and the threat of reversal from above. Am. Political Res. 42:226–56
     [Google Scholar]
138. Smith TA. 2007. The web of law. San Diego Law Rev 44:309–54
     [Google Scholar]
139. Stanford Nat. Lang. Process. Group. n.d The Stanford Parser: a statistical parser https://nlp.stanford.edu/software/lex-parser.shtml
140. Stiglitz EH. 2014. Unaccountable midnight rulemaking? A normatively informative assessment. Legis. Public Policy 17:137–92
     [Google Scholar]
141. Stiglitz EH. 2018. The limits of judicial control and the nondelegation doctrine. J. Law Econ. Organ. 34:27–53
     [Google Scholar]
142. Strang LJ. 2016. How big data can increase originalism's methodological rigor: using corpus linguistics to reveal original language conventions. UC Davis Law Rev 50:1181–241
     [Google Scholar]
143. Talley E, O'Kane D. 2012. The measure of a MAC: a machine-learning protocol for analyzing force majeure clauses in M&A agreements. J. Inst. Theor. Econ. 168:181–201
     [Google Scholar]
144. Tarissan F, Nollez-Goldbach R. 2016. Analysing the first case of the International Criminal Court from a network-science perspective. J. Complex Netw. 4:616–34
     [Google Scholar]
145. Thompson P. 2001. Automatic categorization of case law. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law RP Loui 70–77 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
146. Tobia KP. 2020. Testing ordinary meaning: an experimental assessment of what dictionary definitions and linguistics usage data tell legal interpreters. Harvard Law Rev 133: In press
     [Google Scholar]
147. Varsava N. 2018. The elements of judicial style: a quantitative guide to Justice Gorsuch's writing. NYU Law Rev 93:75–112
     [Google Scholar]
148. Wahlbeck PJ, Spriggs JF, Sigelman L 2002. Ghostwriters on the court? A stylistic analysis of U.S. Supreme Court opinion drafts. Am. Politics Res. 30:166–92
     [Google Scholar]
149. Whalen R. 2013. Modeling annual Supreme Court influence: the role of citation practices and judicial tenure in determining precedent network growth. Complex Networks R Menezes, A Evsukoff, MC González 169–76 Berlin: Springer Verlag
     [Google Scholar]
150. Whalen R. 2015. Judicial gobbledygook: the readability of Supreme Court writing. Yale Law J. Forum 125:200–11
     [Google Scholar]
151. Whalen R, Uzzi B, Mukherjee S 2017. Common Law evolution and judicial impact in the age of information. Elon Law Rev 9:115–70
     [Google Scholar]
152. Young DT. 2013. How do you measure a constitutional moment? Using algorithmic topic modeling to evaluate Bruce Ackerman's theory of constitutional change. Yale Law J 122:1990–2054
     [Google Scholar]