Third Parties in Litigation: A Systemic View of the Judicial Function
1967; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 29; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2307/2127811
ISSN1468-2508
Autores Tópico(s)Judicial and Constitutional Studies
ResumoPrevious articleNext article No AccessThird Parties in Litigation: A Systemic View of the Judicial FunctionLucius J. BarkerLucius J. BarkerPDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmailPrint SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 29, Number 1Feb., 1967 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2127811 Views: 34Total views on this site Citations: 41Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1967 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Adam J. Newmark, Anthony J. Nownes Searching for avenues of influence: multi-branch and multi-level lobbying in Washington, D.C. and the States, Interest Groups & Advocacy 38 (Oct 2023).https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-023-00198-zThomas G. Hansford, Sarah Depaoli, Kayla S. Canelo Estimating the Ideal Points of Organized Interests in Legal Policy Space, Justice System Journal 43, no.44 (Sep 2022): 564–575.https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2120841Shane A. Gleason, Diana K. Ivy As She Was Saying: The Role of Gender and Narratives in Oral Argument Amicus Success, Justice System Journal 42, no.3-43-4 (Feb 2021): 416–433.https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1869631H. W. Perry A Systemic Perspective, National Review of Black Politics 2, no.22 (Apr 2021): 95–106.https://doi.org/10.1525/nrbp.2021.2.2.95Federico Holm, Ramiro Berardo Coalitional Architecture of Climate Change Litigation Networks in the United States, Review of Policy Research 37, no.66 (Oct 2020): 797–822.https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12402Kayla S. Canelo State Coalitions, Informational Signals, and Success as Amicus Curiae at the U.S. Supreme Court, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 20, no.11 (Jan 2021): 108–130.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440019889372Bianca Easterly Counterbalancing the disadvantages of the "Have Nots": an examination of the impact of amicus participation in state supreme court cases, Interest Groups & Advocacy 8, no.44 (Jun 2019): 579–599.https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-019-00057-wGeoffrey D. Callaghan NONPARTY PARTICIPATION AS A (PARTIAL) REMEDY TO PROCEDURALIST CONCERNS OVER JUDICIAL REVIEW, Legal Theory 24, no.44 (Dec 2018): 255–290.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325218000149Ramiro Berardo, Federico Holm The participation of core stakeholders in the design of, and challenges to, the US Clean Power Plan, Climate Policy 18, no.99 (May 2018): 1152–1164.https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1478792Thomas G. Hansford, Kristen Johnson The Supply of Amicus Curiae Briefs in the Market for Information at the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice System Journal 35, no.44 (Aug 2014): 362–382.https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2014.936193Kaitlyn L. Sill, Emily T. Metzgar, Stella M. Rouse Media Coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court: How Do Journalists Assess the Importance of Court Decisions?, Political Communication 30, no.11 (Jan 2013): 58–80.https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737414Thomas Hansford The Dynamics of Interest Representation at the U.S. Supreme Court, Political Research Quarterly 64, no.44 (Mar 2011): 749–764.https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912910395325Shorna R. Broussard, Bianca D. Whitaker The Magna Charta of Environmental Legislation: A historical look at 30 years of NEPA-Forest Service Litigation, Forest Policy and Economics 11, no.22 (Mar 2009): 134–140.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.12.001Andrea McAtee, Kevin T. McGuire Lawyers, Justices, and Issue Salience: When and How Do Legal Arguments Affect the U.S. Supreme Court?, Law & Society Review 41, no.22 (Jan 2024): 259–278.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2007.00298.xMARK J. RICHARDS, JOSEPH L. SMITH, HERBERT M. KRITZER Does Chevron Matter?, Law & Policy 28, no.44 (Sep 2006): 444–469.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2006.00234.xISAAC UNAH, ANGE‐MARIE HANCOCK U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making, Case Salience, and the Attitudinal Model, Law & Policy 28, no.33 (Jun 2006): 295–320.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2006.00228.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 (Jun 2006): 321–344.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2006.00229.xThomas G. Hansford Information Provision, Organizational Constraints, and the Decision to Submit an Amicus Curiae Brief in a U.S. Supreme Court Case, Political Research Quarterly 57, no.22 (Jul 2016): 219–230.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290405700204Thomas G. Hansford Lobbying Strategies, Venue Selection, and Organized Interest Involvement at the U.S. Supreme Court, American Politics Research 32, no.22 (Jul 2016): 170–197.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X03259192Andrew B. Whitford The Structures of Interest Coalitions: Evidence from Environmental Litigation, Business and Politics 5, no.11 (Jan 2017): 45–64.https://doi.org/10.2202/1469-3569.1046Donald Songer, Ashlyn Kuersten, Erin Kaheny Why the Haves Don't Always Come Out Ahead: Repeat Players Meet Amici CCuriae for the Disadvantaged, Political Research Quarterly 53, no.33 (Jul 2016): 537–556.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290005300305 Paul J. Wahlbeck The Life of the Law: Judicial Politics and Legal Change, The Journal of Politics 59, no.33 (Oct 2015): 778–802.https://doi.org/10.2307/2998637James F. Spriggs, Paul J. Wahlbeck Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court, Political Research Quarterly 50, no.22 (Jul 2016): 365–386.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299705000206Rebecca Mae Salokar Beyond Gay Rights Litigation: Using a Systemic Strategy to Effect Political Change in the United States, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 3, no.44 (May 1997): 385–415.https://doi.org/10.1215/10642684-3-4-385Kevin T. McGuire Amici Curiae and Strategies for Gaining Access to the Supreme Court, Political Research Quarterly 47, no.44 (Jul 2016): 821–837.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299404700402Lee Epstein Exploring the Participation of Organized Interests in State Court Litigation, Political Research Quarterly 47, no.22 (Jul 2016): 335–351.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299404700206Lucius J. Barker Limits of Political Strategy: A Systemic View of the African American Experience, American Political Science Review 88, no.11 (Sep 2013): 1–13.https://doi.org/10.2307/2944878Donald R. Songer, Reginald S. Sheehan Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court, Political Research Quarterly 46, no.22 (Jul 2016): 339–354.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299304600207Lee Epstein, C. K. Rowland Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility in the Courts, American Political Science Review 85, no.11 (Aug 2014): 205–217.https://doi.org/10.2307/1962886 Susan M. Olson Interest-Group Litigation in Federal District Court: Beyond the Political Disadvantage Theory, The Journal of Politics 52, no.33 (Oct 2015): 854–882.https://doi.org/10.2307/2131830John B. Gates Supreme Court Voting and Realigning Issues: A Microlevel Analysis of Supreme Court Policy Making and Electoral Realignment, Social Science History 13, no.33 (Jan 1989): 255.https://doi.org/10.2307/1171372Gregory 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/10.2307/1961752 Joseph F. Kobylka A Court-Created Context for Group Litigation: Libertarian Groups and Obscenity, The Journal of Politics 49, no.44 (Oct 2015): 1061–1078.https://doi.org/10.2307/2130784Robert Rushin, Karen O'Connor JUDICIAL LOBBYING: INTEREST GROUPS, THE SUPREME COURT AND ISSUES OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND SPEECH*, Southeastern Political Review 15, no.11 (Nov 2008): 47–66.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.1987.tb00225.xRobert H. Salisbury Interest Representation: The Dominance of Institutions, American Political Science Review 78, no.11 (Aug 2014): 64–76.https://doi.org/10.2307/1961249 Karen O'Connor , and Lee Epstein The Rise of Conservative Interest Group Litigation, The Journal of Politics 45, no.22 (Oct 2015): 479–489.https://doi.org/10.2307/2130136Lucius J. Barker Black Americans and the Politics of Inclusion, PS: Political Science & Politics 16, no.0303 (Sep 2013): 500–507.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096500015626Lucius J. Barker Black Americans and the Politics of Inclusion, PS 16, no.33 (Nov 2022): 500–507.https://doi.org/10.2307/418611Kenneth M. Holland THE TWILIGHT OF ADVERSARINESS: TRENDS IN CIVIL JUSTICE, Policy Studies Journal 10, no.44 (Sep 2005): 689–701.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1982.tb00648.xAnthony Champagne, Stuart Nagel, Marian Neef Judicial Behavior, (Jan 1981): 241–315.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0579-9_5Joel B. Grossman The Supreme Court and Social Change, American Behavioral Scientist 13, no.44 (Jul 2016): 535–551.https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427001300405
Referência(s)