Cover not available
Article published In:
Dialogue in institutional settings
Edited by Franca Orletti and Letizia Caronia
[Language and Dialogue 9:1] 2019
► pp. 65–83

Decision announcements in small claims court

A recurring judge dilemma

| University of Colorado Boulder (USA)
| University of Colorado Boulder (USA)
This study analyzes judges’ decision announcements at the end of small claims hearings when the judge informs the parties who has won. Background on US small claims courts is provided, and the data and grounded practical theory, the analytic approach, are described. Then, we overview the small claims decision announcement genre, describe key areas of variation among judges, and identify and explicate a recurring problem built into the design of small claims proceedings. Cases that pit what is legally correct against what commonsense fairness dictates can be troublesome for judges and this trouble is marked discursively in judge announcements. The paper concludes by describing the challenge this raises for the development of grounded practical theory.
Keywords: small claims court, judge language, discourse analysis, grounded practical theory, genre, dilemma
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Small claims court practices
  • 3.The trial data and analytic approach
  • 4.The small claims judicial announcement genre
  • 5.How judges’ reason-giving varied
  • 6.Disputes that pit legal correctness against common-sense fairness
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00032.tra
References (22)
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Best, Arthur, Deborah Zalense, Kathleeen Bridges and Kathryn Chenoweth. 1993. “Peace, wealth, happiness and small claim courts: A case study.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 21 (2): 343–379.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conley, John M. and William M. O’Barr. 1990. Rules versus Relationships. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Craig, Robert T. and Karen Tracy. 1995. “Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion.” Communication Theory 51: 248–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Building grounded practical theory in applied communication research: Introduction to the special issue.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 42 (3): 229–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ewick, Patrick and Susan S. Silbey. 1998. The Commonplace of Law: Stories from Everyday Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana E. 2015. “Genre analysis.” In The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie and Todd L. Sandel, 677–693. Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goerdt, John A. 1992. Small Claims and Traffic Court: Case Management Procedures, Case characteristics, and Outcomes in 12 Urban Districts. Williamsburg, VA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hafner, Christoph A. 2010. “A multiperspective genre analysis of the barrister’s opinion: Writing context, generic structure, and textualization.” Written Communication 27 (4): 410–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Zhengrui. 2011. “The discursive construction of civil judgments in Mainland China.” Discourse and Society 22 (6): 743–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Livermore, Michael A., Allen B. Riddell and Daniel N. Rockmore. 2017. “The Supreme Court and the judicial genre.” Arizona Law Review 591: 837–901.Google Scholar
Rohl, Klaus F. 1990. “Small claims in civil court proceedings in the Federal Republic of Germany.” In Small Claims Courts, ed. by Christopher J. Whelan, 167–181. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ruhnka, John C. and Steven Weller. 1978. Small Claims Courts: A National Examination. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
Steele, Eric H. 1981. “The historical context of small claims courts.” Law and Social Inquiry 6 (2): 293–376. Retrieved from [URL]
The Small Claims Study Group. 1972. Little Injustices: Small Claims and the American Consumer. Washington, DC: Center for Auto Safety.Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen and Mary Caron. 2017. “How the language style of small claims judges does ideological work.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 36 (3): 321–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tracy, Karen and Danielle Hodge. 2018. “Judge discourse moves that enact and endanger procedural justice.” Discourse and Society 29 (1): 63–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 1988. “What is procedural justice?: Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures.” Law and Society Review 22 (1): 103–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. “Procedural justice and the courts.” Court Review 44(1/2): 26–31. Retrieved from [URL]
Weller, Steven, John C. Ruhnka and John A. Martin. 1990. “American small claims courts.” In Small Claims Courts, ed. by Christopher J. Whelan, 5–23. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Hidayat, Dudung
2023. Small Claim Court (SCC): Implementasi Dan Hambatannya Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Perdata. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia 5:1 ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Tracy, Karen
2020. Chapter 11. Judicial questioning. In Politeness in Professional Contexts [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 311], ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.