2014
DOI: 10.1177/0887403414544954
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Supreme Court Outcomes in Criminal Justice Cases (1994-2012 Terms)

Abstract: This study examines the role of status differential between the involved parties and amici curiae participation in explaining variation in U.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 68 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…5 There is some evidence that more amicus brief support is associated with higher litigant success at the merits stage (Kearney and Merrill 2000) and the party supported by the largest number of these briefs (and the most experienced lawyers) generally enjoys an advantage in the ultimate adjudication of the case (Collins 2004, Kearney and Merrill 2000, Mak, Sidman and Sommer 2013, McGuire 1995, O'Connor and Epstein 1982, Songer and Kuersten 1995. 6 This advantage is compounded further by the involvement of high-profile interest groups, like the Chamber of Commerce or the American Civil Liberties Union (Buckler 2015, Epstein 1992, Ivers and O'Connor 1987, Lynch 2004). Briefs can act as a useful signal for justices on the importance or relevance of a particular case, encouraging them to grant review initially or decide a particular way in the merits stage (Caldeira and Wright 1988).…”
Section: Amicus Briefs and Credit Claimingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5 There is some evidence that more amicus brief support is associated with higher litigant success at the merits stage (Kearney and Merrill 2000) and the party supported by the largest number of these briefs (and the most experienced lawyers) generally enjoys an advantage in the ultimate adjudication of the case (Collins 2004, Kearney and Merrill 2000, Mak, Sidman and Sommer 2013, McGuire 1995, O'Connor and Epstein 1982, Songer and Kuersten 1995. 6 This advantage is compounded further by the involvement of high-profile interest groups, like the Chamber of Commerce or the American Civil Liberties Union (Buckler 2015, Epstein 1992, Ivers and O'Connor 1987, Lynch 2004). Briefs can act as a useful signal for justices on the importance or relevance of a particular case, encouraging them to grant review initially or decide a particular way in the merits stage (Caldeira and Wright 1988).…”
Section: Amicus Briefs and Credit Claimingmentioning
confidence: 99%