Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Articles

Vol. 4 No. 3 (2017): Brazilian Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

Deciphering the João Mendes forum: what the numbers tell us?

DOI
https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v4i3.91
Submitted
December 7, 2015
Published
2017-11-10

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the profile of the initial lawsuits at the João Mendes Forum, the one with largest volume of litigation cases. By employing big data, we extracted and evaluated the population of lawsuits initiated in five lower courts of João Mendes, throughout the year of 2014. There were a total of 11,959 cases. In line with what is observed in higher courts, our results indicate a strong concentration of cases in a small number of companies, strongly represented by those of the banking sector. On the other hand, most actions were of ordinary procedures, involving claims of relatively low values, though there was a large dispersion of these values. Future works could propose to build a complexity index of these initial cases, and see if there are significant differences between the average degree of complexity of the cases brought to João Mendes Forum in comparison to those brought to other courts in São Paulo, or even nationwide.

References

  1. Ballard, M. (1999). The Clash Between Local Courts and Global Economics: The Politics of Judicial Reform in Brazil. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 17, 230-276.
  2. Banco Mundial (2004). Fazendo com que a Justiça Conte – Medindo e Aprimorando o Desempenho do Judiciário no Brasil. Relatório No. 32789-BR, Unidade de Redução de Pobreza e Gestão Econômica, América Latina e Caribe. 30 de Dezembro.
  3. Banco Mundial (2015). Doing Business 2015. Washington DC: World Bank.
  4. Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2015). Justiça em Números 2015. Brasília: Conselho Nacional de Justiça. (Disponível em: http://www.cnj.jus.br/programas-e-acoes/pj-justica-em-numeros)
  5. Dakolias, M. (1999). Court Performance around the World – A Comparative Perspective. World Bank Technical Paper No. 430. Washington DC: World Bank.
  6. Falcão, J., Cerdeira, P.C. e Arguelhes, D.W. (2011). I Relatório Supremo em Números – O Múltiplo Supremo. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas Direito Rio (Abril).
  7. Hammergren, L. (2006). Toward a more results-focused approach to judicial reform. In XI Congreso Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma Del Estado y de la Administración Pública. Ciudad de Guatemala, 1-16.
  8. Laney, D. (2001). 3D Data Management: Controlling Data Volume, Velocity, and Variety. Application Delivery Strategies, File 949. Stamford: META Group Inc (Feb.).
  9. Moreira, H. D. R. F. (2004). Poder Judiciário no Brasil – Crise de Eficiência. Curitiba: Editora Juruá.
  10. Ostrom, B. J., Hanson, R. A., & National Center for State Courts (1999). Efficiency, Timeliness, and Quality: a New Perspective from Nine State Criminal Trial Courts. Prepared for the National Institute of Justice and the State Justice Institute.
  11. Santos Filho, H. P. (coordenador) et al (2009), Demandas Judiciais e Morosidade da Justiça Civil, Relatório para o Edital o Conselho Nacional de Justiça 01/2009. Porto Alegre: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul.
  12. Sherwood, R. M. (2007). The Unseen elephant: What Blocks Judicial System Improvement? Berkeley Program in Law & Economics, Latin American and Caribbean Law and Economics Association (ALACDE) Annual Papers, Paper 050207’11.
  13. Yeung, L.L. & Azevedo, P.F. (2011). “Measuring efficiency of Brazilian courts with data envelopment analysis (DEA)”. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics, Vol. 22, pp. 343–356.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.