Strategies in Certiorari Voting on the United States Supreme Court

Brenner, Saul; Krol, John F.

doi:10.2307/2131536

Cited by 41 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Analysts of the Court (e.g., Caldeira, Wright, & Zorn, 1999;Segal & Spaeth, 2002) agree that a high proportion of cases, especially among the in forma pauperis ones, are frivolous and inevitably denied cert. Nevertheless, the extremely low proportion heard overall offers scope for strategic behavior by justices, namely, to vote to deny cert on cases they think they will lose, and there is evidence for this (Brenner & Krol, 1989;Caldeira, Wright, & Zorn, 1999;Perry, 1991; although see Palmer, 1990). This behavior will affect which cases are heard and thus the content and scope of the Court decisions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presidential Power over Supreme Court Decisions

Whitmeyer

2006

Public Choice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I calculate U.S. presidents’ power and power use concerning the ideological direction of U.S. Supreme Court decisions through their ability to appoint replacements to the Court, over the period 1946 through 2001. I test hypotheses concerning factors affecting appointment power and power use, and examine their effect on Senate confirmation votes. Of nine presidents, four have had the ability to affect the direction of more than 25 percent of Court decisions for sustained periods of time. Strongly ideological power use in appointment is found for four also. Senate confirmation votes have tended to be more favorable when the president has more appointment power. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presidential Power over Supreme Court Decisions

Whitmeyer

2006

Public Choice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, justices generally focus on identifying and selecting cases with wide-ranging importance and contradictory resolu-tions in lower courts. Research on specific factors that influence the likelihood of review (see, e.g., Brenner & Krol 1989;Epstein & Knight 1998;Perry 1991;Provine 1980;Segal & Spaeth 1993;Tanenhaus et al 1963;Teger & Kosinski 1980;Ulmer 1984) has borne out the importance of these two factors. Moreover, the Court uses these cues and others to determine cases which provide the best vehicles for ensuring lower court compliance with the Court's preferences (Cameron, Segal, & Songer 2000;Songer, Segal, & Cameron 1994).…”

Section: The Legal Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Supreme Court Activity on the Judicial Agenda

Rice¹

2014

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When the Supreme Court takes action, it establishes national policy within an issue area. A traditional, legal view holds that the decisions of the Court settle questions of law and thereby close the door on future litigation, reducing the need for future attention to that issue. Alternatively, an emerging interest group perspective suggests the Court, in deciding cases, provides signals that encourage additional attention to particular issues. I examine these competing perspectives of what happens in the federal courts after Supreme Court decisions. My results indicate that while Supreme Court decisions generally settle areas of law in terms of overall litigation rates, they also introduce new information that leads to increases in the attention of judges and interest groups to those particular issues.

show abstract

“…Hall and Brace (1999) are more guarded in their evaluation, though they, too, see the development of strategic approaches as beneficial and are cautiously optimistic about its advancement. 14 Other notable works include Boucher and Segal (1995), Brenner (1982), Brenner and Krol (1989), Epstein and Knight (1998), Gely and Spiller (1990), Hammond, Bonneau, and Sheehan (2005). Of course, all of the contemporary work owes a significant intellectual debt to Murphy's puissant book,…”

Section: Designated District Court Judges and Theory Buildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Small Group Context: Designated District Court Judges in the United States Courts of Appeals

Collins

Martinek

2008

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision making in the United States Courts of Appeals occurs primarily in three-judge panels with rotating membership. A substantial proportion of court of appeals cases is decided by panels that include a judge who is not a regular court of appeals jurist but is, instead, a district court judge serving temporarily on the court of appeals bench. Taken together, these two traits mean that court of appeals decision making is often a function of small groups with temporary members. In this paper, we set out to examine whether designated district court judges behave differently than their court of appeals colleagues with whom they render decisions. And, in doing so, we suggest a profitable direction for theory building vis-à-vis judicial behavior. Our analysis of data contained in the United States Courts of Appeals Database indicates that the votes of judges on three-judge panels are influenced by the preferences of their fellow panelists and that variance in the ideological direction of votes cast is not systematically related to status as a designated district court judge, with such judges manifesting greater variance in their ideological decision making.

show abstract

Strategies in Certiorari Voting on the United States Supreme Court

Cited by 41 publications

References 6 publications

Presidential Power over Supreme Court Decisions

Presidential Power over Supreme Court Decisions

The Impact of Supreme Court Activity on the Judicial Agenda

The Small Group Context: Designated District Court Judges in the United States Courts of Appeals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About