Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari
1979; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 41; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2307/2129740
ISSN1468-2508
Autores Tópico(s)Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
ResumoPrevious articleNext article No AccessResearch NotesConcern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on CertiorariDonald R. SongerDonald R. Songer Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmailPrint SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 41, Number 4Nov., 1979 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2129740 Views: 16Total views on this site Citations: 41Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1979 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Kenneth W. Moffett, Forrest Maltzman, Karen Miranda, Charles R. Shipan Strategic Behavior and Variation in the Supreme Court's Caseload Over Time, Justice System Journal 37, no.11 (Jul 2015): 20–38.https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2015.1067156Katie Zuber, Udi Sommer, Jonathan Parent Setting the Agenda of the United States Supreme Court? Organized Interests and the Decision to File an Amicus Curiae Brief at Cert, Justice System Journal 36, no.22 (Oct 2014): 119–137.https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2014.965857R. C. Black, C. L. Boyd US Supreme Court Agenda Setting and the Role of Litigant Status, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 28, no.22 (Feb 2010): 286–312.https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewq002Gregory A. Caldeira, John R. Wright, Christopher J. Zorn Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court Revisited, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2012).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2109497Scott A. Hendrickson Opposite Side of the Same Agenda Setting Coin? DIGs in the U.S. Supreme Court, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2012).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2241686Udi Sommer How rational are justices on the Supreme Court of the United States? Doctrinal considerations during agenda setting, Rationality and Society 23, no.44 (Nov 2011): 452–477.https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463111425014Colin Provost When to Befriend the Court? Examining State Amici Curiae Participation Before the U.S. Supreme Court, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11, no.11 (Jan 2021): 4–27.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440010387276Robert J. Hume Strategic-Instrument Theory and the Use of Non-Authoritative Sources by Federal Judges: Explaining References to Law Review Articles, Justice System Journal 31, no.33 (Dec 2013): 291–315.https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2010.10767972Udi Sommer Beyond Defensive Denials: Evidence from the Blackmun Files of a Broader Scope of Strategic Certiorari, Justice System Journal 31, no.33 (Dec 2013): 316–341.https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2010.10767973Ryan C. BlackRyan J. Owens Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court: The Collision of Policy and Jurisprudence, The Journal of Politics 71, no.33 (Jul 2015): 1062–1075.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609090884Isaac Unah Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court, (Jan 2009): 79–105.https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230102354_4John R. Wright, Gregory A. Caldeira Organized Interests Before the Supreme Court: Setting the Agenda, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2009).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1442945Ryan C. Black, Ryan J. Owens Join-3 Votes and Supreme Court Agenda Setting, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2009).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1568389Robert J. Hume Administrative Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court: The Importance of Legal Signals, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4, no.33 (Nov 2007): 625–649.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00101.xMARK S. HURWITZ Institutional Arrangements and the Dynamics of Agenda Formation in the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals, Law Policy 28, no.33 (Jul 2006): 321–344.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2006.00229.xBarbara L. Graham Explaining Supreme Court Policymaking in Civil Rights: The Influence of the Solicitor General, 1953-2002, Policy Studies Journal 31, no.22 (May 2003): 253–271.https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0072.00014Sara C. Benesh, Saul Brenner, Harold J. Spaeth Aggressive Grants by Affirm-Minded Justices, American Politics Research 30, no.33 (Jul 2016): 219–234.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X02030003001John R Hermann American indians in court: the Burger and Rehnquist years, The Social Science Journal 37, no.22 (Dec 2019): 247–259.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0362-3319(00)00058-6Charles M. Cameron, Jeffrey A. Segal, Donald Songer Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions, American Political Science Review 94, no.11 (Aug 2014): 101–116.https://doi.org/10.2307/2586383Barbara Palmer Issue Fluidity and Agenda Setting on the Warren Court, Political Research Quarterly 52, no.11 (Mar 1999): 39–65.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299905200102Scott Barclay, Thomas Birkland Law, Policymaking, and the Policy Process: Closing the Gaps, Policy Studies Journal 26, no.22 (Jun 1998): 227–243.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01896.xKevin T. McGuire, Barbara Palmer Issues, Agendas, and Decision Making on the Supreme Court, American Political Science Review 90, no.44 (Aug 2014): 853–865.https://doi.org/10.2307/2945849Forrest Maltzman, Paul J. Wahlbeck Strategic Policy Considerations and Voting Fluidity on the Burger Court, American Political Science Review 90, no.33 (Aug 2014): 581–592.https://doi.org/10.2307/2082610 Donald R. Songer , Charles M. Cameron , and Jeffrey A. Segal An Empirical Test of the Rational-Actor Theory of Litigation, The Journal of Politics 57, no.44 (Oct 2015): 1119–1129.https://doi.org/10.2307/2960404Cook Beverly B. A Critique of the Supreme Court’s 1982 Agenda: Alternatives to the NYU Legal Model, Justice System Journal 17, no.22 (Sep 2014): 135–151.https://doi.org/10.1080/23277556.1994.10871199Kevin T. McGuire, Gregory A. Caldeira Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court, American Political Science Review 87, no.33 (Sep 2013): 717–726.https://doi.org/10.2307/2938746Reginald S. Sheehan Governmental Litigants, Underdogs, and Civil Liberties: a Reassessment of a Trend in Supreme Court Decisionmaking, Western Political Quarterly 45, no.11 (Sep 2016): 27–39.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299204500104 Timothy M. Hagle , and Harold J. Spaeth The Emergence of a New Ideology: The Business Decisions of the Burger Court, The Journal of Politics 54, no.11 (Oct 2015): 120–134.https://doi.org/10.2307/2131646Timothy M. Hagle But Do They Have To See It To Know It? the Supreme Court's Obscenity and Pornography Decisions, Western Political Quarterly 44, no.44 (Sep 2016): 1039–1054.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299104400413Jeffrey A. Segal Supreme Court Support for the Solicitor General: the Effect of Presidential Appointments, Western Political Quarterly 43, no.11 (Sep 2016): 137–152.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299004300110Kevin T. McGuire Obscenity, Libertarian Values, and Decision Making in the Supreme Court, American Politics Quarterly 18, no.11 (Nov 2016): 47–67.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X9001800103Robert W. Suchner, Jim Thomas, Anmarie Aylward Judicial Decision Making in Prisoner Civil Rights Litigation, Journal of Crime and Justice 12, no.22 (Jan 1989): 109–145.https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.1989.9721393Gregory A. Caldeira, John R. Wright Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court, American Political Science Review 82, no.44 (Sep 2013): 1109–1127.https://doi.org/10.2307/1961752J. A. Segal Amicus Curiae Briefs By the Solicitor General During the Warren and Burger Courts: a Research Note, Political Research Quarterly 41, no.11 (Mar 1988): 135–144.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298804100109 S. Sidney Ulmer Governmental Litigants, Underdogs, and Civil Liberties in the Supreme Court: 1903-1968 Terms, The Journal of Politics 47, no.33 (Oct 2015): 899–909.https://doi.org/10.2307/2131216S. Sidney Ulmer The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable, American Political Science Review 78, no.44 (Aug 2014): 901–911.https://doi.org/10.2307/1955797 S. Sidney Ulmer Conflict with Supreme Court Precedent and the Granting of Plenary Review, The Journal of Politics 45, no.22 (Oct 2015): 474–478.https://doi.org/10.2307/2130135James L. Gibson From simplicity to complexity: The development of theory in the study of judicial behavior, Political Behavior 5, no.11 (Jan 1983): 7–49.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989985 Virginia C. Armstrong and Charles A. Johnson Certiorari Decisions by the Warren & Burger Courts: Is Cue Theory Time Bound?, Polity 15, no.11 (Nov 2016): 141–150.https://doi.org/10.2307/3234599Jan Palmer An econometric analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's certiorari decisions, Public Choice 39, no.33 (Jan 1982): 387–398.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118795 Stuart H. Teger , and Douglas Kosinski The Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration, The Journal of Politics 42, no.33 (Oct 2015): 834–846.https://doi.org/10.2307/2130555
Referência(s)