Stuart S. Nagel

Publications

• Generalizing from Facts in Predicting Court Cases
  9 N. ILL. U. L. REV. 369 (1989) · Northern Illinois University Law Review · 1989
• Systems Analysis, Microcomputers, and the Judicial Process
  14 U. DAYTON L. REV. (1989) · University of Dayton Law Review · 1989
• Computer-Aided Law Decisions
  21 AKRON L. REV. (1988) · Akron Law Review · 1988
• Computer-Aided Advocacy
  14 U. DAYTON L. REV. (1988) · University of Dayton Law Review · 1988
• Microcomputers, Risk Analysis, and Litigation Strategy
  19 AKRON L. REV. (1986) · Akron Law Review · 1986
• Using Management Science to Assign Judges to Casetypes
  40 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1317 (1986) · University of Miami Law Review · 1986
• Sequencing and Allocating Attorney Time to Cases
  13 PEPP. L. REV. (1986) · Pepperdine Law Review · 1986
• Using Microcomputers and P/G% to Predict court Cases
  18 AKRON L. REV. (1985) · Akron Law Review · 1985
• Finding an Optimum Legal Policy Level: The Undesirability of Doing Too Much or Too Little in the Law
  86 W. VA. L. REV. (1983) · West Virginia Law Review · 1983
• Lawyer Decisionmaking and Threshold Analysis
  36 U. MIAMI L. REV. 615 (1982) · University of Miami Law Review · 1982
• Predicting and Reducing Court-Case Time through Simple Logic
  60 N. C. L. REV. 103 (1981) · North Carolina Law Review · 1981
• Attorney Time Per Case: Finding an Optimal Level
  32 FLA. L. REV. 424 (1980) · Florida Law Review · 1980

• Time-Oriented Models and the Legal Process: Reducing Delay and Forecasting the Future
  1978 WASH. U. L. REV. 467 (1978) · Washington University Law Review · 1978
• Decision Theory and the Pre-Trial Release Decision in Criminal Cases
  31 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1433 (1977) · University of Miami Law Review · 1977
• Plea Bargaining, Decision Theory, and Equilibrium Models: Part II
  52 IND. L.J. (1976) · Indiana Law Journal · 1976
• Plea Bargaining, Decision Theory, and Equilibrium Models: Part I
  51 IND. L.J. (1976) · Indiana Law Journal · 1976
• Racial Disparities That Supposedly Do Not Exist: Some Pitfalls in Analysis of Court Records
  52 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 87 (1976) · Notre Dame Law Review · 1976
• Deductive Modeling to Determine an Optimum Jury Size and Fraction Required to Convict
  1975 WASH. U. L. REV. 933 (1975) · Washington University Law Review · 1975
• Multiple Correlation of Judicial Background and Decisions
  2 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 258 (1974) · Florida State University Law Review · 1974
• Effects of Alternative Types of Counsel on Criminal Procedure Treatment
  48 IND. L.J. (1973) · Indiana Law Journal · 1973
• Women as Litigants
  23 UC L.J. 171 (1971) · UC Law Journal · 1971
• Review Article
  69 MICH. L. REV. 156 (1970) · Michigan Law Review · 1970

• Optimizing Legal Policy
  18 FLA. L. REV. 577 (1966) · Florida Law Review · 1966
• Judicial Prediction and Analysis From Empirical Probability Tables
  41 IND. L.J. (1966) · Indiana Law Journal · 1966
• Attorney Characteristics and Courtroom Results
  44 NEB. L. REV. 599 (1965) · Nebraska Law Review · 1965
• Court-Curbing Periods in American History
  18 VAND. L. REV. 925 (1965) · Vanderbilt Law Review · 1965
• Predicting Court Cases Quantitatively
  63 MICH. L. REV. 1411 (1965) · Michigan Law Review · 1965
• Simplified Bipartisan Computer Redistricting
  17 STAN. L. REV. 863 (1965) · Stanford Law Review · 1965
• Judicial Backgrounds and Criminal Cases
  53 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 333 (1962) · Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology · 1962
• Culture Patterns and Judicial Systems
  16 VAND. L. REV. 147 (1962) · Vanderbilt Law Review · 1962