Lawmakers constantly face the issue of balancing many different interests within in every law that is enacted.
As a result, many laws turn out to make ambiguous statements, until they are interpreted and put into life by respected authorities, i.e. the courts. The term "Litigation Dynamics" describes a collection of models that are designed to reproduce the interaction between law users (agents that are affectded by the law such as the people), law interpreters (jurisdiction), and lawmakers. The following principle is at the heart of many of these models: As we stated above, a law is seldomly enacted with perfect clarity. and that sooner or later, two parties will meet in dispute over an ambiguous passage. The parties willingness to settle their disagreement depends on the preditability of the court's decision and how sure each party can be of winning. Surely, the more precedents there are available, the better such a judgement can be made, and every new lawsuit adds to the set of precedents.
Many questions can be asked about such system; a selected few are just: What is the significance of the described process? Can a better understanding of why people choose to go to court help the lawmaker anticipate those disagreements that would need the most interpretation, thus straining the courts the most? Can new or amended legislation be "distilled" from case law, or will this process just open more more potential for disgreement?