Saltar al contenido principal

ETHNOS_APP

Inicio • Búsqueda • Revistas • Lista 0

Lower Court Influence on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content

Datos Bibliográficos

ID7408993
AutoresPamela C Corley (Vanderbilt University), Perry Mcd Collins (0000-0002-5474-4123, University of North Texas), Bryan Calvin (University of North Texas)
Año2011
Volumen73
Número1
Páginas31-44
Fecha de publicación2011-01-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaThe Journal of Politics (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0022-3816 • E-ISSN: 1468-2508
EditorialUniversity of Chicago Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1017/s0022381610000848
OpenAlexW2041690482
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas40
Referencias citadas26

Despite the importance of Supreme Court opinions for the American polity, scholars have dedicated little systematic research to investigating the factors that contribute to the content of the Court’s opinions. In this paper, we examine the ability of lower federal courts to shape the content of Supreme Court opinions. We argue that lower court opinions will influence the content of the Court’s opinions based on a number of factors, including the prestige of the lower court opinion author, the published or unpublished nature of the lower court opinion, the ideological compatibility of the lower court opinion vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s decision, the type of lower court opinion, and the lower court from which the opinion emanated. Utilizing plagiarism detection software to compare lower federal court opinions with the majority opinions of the Supreme Court during the 2002-2004 terms, we uncover support for our hypotheses, indicating that the Supreme Court systematically incorporates language from the lower federal courts into its majority opinions

Concurring opinion · Content (measure theory · Court of record · Law of the case · Majority opinion · Original jurisdiction · Political science · Precedent · Remand (court procedure · Supreme court · Supreme Court Decisions · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal Education and Practice Innovations

  • The Evolving View of the Law and Judicial Decision‐Making

    Open Access•Justine D'Elia‐Kueper, Jeffrey A Segal•Emerging Trends in the Social and…•2015

  • Do the Audio and Video from Public Hearings Impact High Court Legitimacy

    Open Access•Andrew Stones, Jeffrey Ziegler•Journal of Experimental Political…•2026

  • Cognitive Decline on the Bench

    Open Access•Mikel Norris•Behavioral Sciences & the Law•2026

  • Measuring the prestige of administrative courts

    Open Access•Monika Stachowiak‐Kudła, Joanne Kudla•Quality & Quantity•2023

  • The U.S. Supreme Court’s Increasing Use of Legal Scholarship

    Open Access•Justin Burnworth•Journal of Law and Courts•2026

  • Measuring the Political Salience of Supreme Court Cases

    Open Access•Tom S Clark, Jeffrey R Lax et al.•Journal of Law and Courts•2015

  • Lower Court Influence on High Courts

    Open Access•Jennifer Bowie, Ali S Masood et al.•Journal of Law and Courts•2023

  • The Sources and Consequences of Political Rhetoric

    Open Access•Michael A Zilis, Justin Wedeking•Journal of Law and Courts•2020

  • Lawyer, Interrupted

    Open Access•Dana Patton, Joseph L Smith•Journal of Law and Courts•2017

  • Agenda Setting and Attention to Precedent in the US Federal Courts

    Open Access•Jbrandon Duck-Mayr, Thomas G Hansford et al.•Journal of Law and Courts•2021

  • State Court Influence on US Supreme Court Opinions

    Open Access•Jennifer Bowie, Elisha Carol Savchak•Journal of Law and Courts•2021

  • Strategic Opinion Language on the US Courts of Appeals

    Open Access•Joshua Boston•Journal of Law and Courts•2020

  • Who wrote the rules for the Trans-Pacific Partnership

    Open Access•Todd Allee, Andrew Lugg•Research & Politics•2016

  • Computational Methods in Legal Analysis

    Open Access•Jens Frankenreiter, Michael A Livermore•Annual Review of Law and Social…•2020

  • Using Citations to Measure Influence on the Supreme Court

    Open Access•Tom Pryor•American Politics Research•2017

  • The Role of Gender Norms in Judicial Decision-Making at the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Shane A Gleason, Jennifer Jones et al.•American Politics Research•2018

  • Public Comments’ Influence on Science Use in U.S. Rulemaking

    Open Access•Mia Costa, Bruce A Desmarais et al.•The American Review of Public…•2018

  • Where Do Population Policies Come From? Copying in African Fertility and Refugee Policies

    Open Access•Katherine H Tennis, Rebecca S Robinson et al.•Population Research and Policy…•2020

  • Measuring Policy Diffusion in Federal Systems

    Open Access•Evelyne Brie, Cynthia Huo et al.•Publius The Journal of Federalism•2024

  • The Sum of its Parts

    Open Access•Ali S Masood, Benjamin J Kassow•Social Science Quarterly•2020

  • The Path of Law

    Open Access•Anthony R Taboni•American Political Science Review•2025

  • Presidential Influence of the News Media

    Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha•Political Communication•2013

  • The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content

    Open Access•Perry Mcd Collins, Paul M Collins et al.•Law & Society Review•2015

  • Are the Contents of International Treaties Copied and Pasted? Evidence from Preferential Trade Agreements

    Open Access•Todd Allee, Manfred Elsig•International Studies Quarterly•2019

  • The Information Dynamics of Vertical Stare Decisis

    Thomas G Hansford, James F Spriggs et al.•The Journal of Politics•2013

  • Learning in the Judicial Hierarchy

    Deborah Beim•The Journal of Politics•2017

  • Judicial Independence and Opinion Clarity on State Supreme Courts

    Open Access•Greg Goelzhauser, Damon M Cann et al.•State Politics & Policy Quarterly•2014

  • Inviting the Populists to the Party

    Open Access•Zachary A Scott•Political Research Quarterly•2023

  • United Kingdom, United Courts? Hierarchical Interactions and Attention to Precedent in the British Judiciary

    Open Access•Ali S Masood, Monica E Lineberger et al.•Political Research Quarterly•2020

  • Reconsidering Judicial Preferences

    Lee Epstein, Jack Knight•Annual Review of Political Science•2013

  • Into the Words

    Open Access•Rachael K Hinkle•American Journal of Political…•2015

  • Law, Fact, and the Threat of Reversal From Above

    Open Access•Joseph L Smith•American Politics Research•2014

  • The Supreme Court, Ideology, and the Decision to Cite or Borrow from Amicus Curiae Briefs

    Open Access•Kayla S Canelo•American Politics Research•2022

  • Supreme Court Precedent in a Judicial Hierarchy

    Open Access•Ali S Masood, Benjamin J Kassow et al.•American Politics Research•2017

  • Quick to Judge? Confirmation by Cloture in the Post-Nuclear Senate

    Open Access•Jonathan M King, Ian Ostrander•American Politics Research•2025

  • Opinion Construction in the Roberts Court

    Open Access•Adam Feldman•Law & Policy•2017

  • Well said

    Open Access•Shane A Gleason, Krystoff Kissoon•Law & Policy•2025

  • The Influence of Public Sentiment on Supreme Court Opinion Clarity

    Open Access•Ryan C Black, Ryan J Owens et al.•Law & Society Review•2016

  • The (Dis)Advantage of Certainty

    Open Access•Pamela C Corley, Justin Wedeking•Law & Society Review•2014

  • All eyes are on you

    Open Access•Laura P Moyer, John Szmer et al.•Law & Society Review•2021

  • Making Law in the United States Courts of Appeals

    Open Access•David E Klein, David Klein•Making Law in the United States…•2002

  • The Judicial Common Space

    Lee Epstein, A D Martins et al.•The Journal of Law Economics and…•2007

  • Agenda Control, the Median Justice, and the Majority Opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Chris W Bonneau, Thomas H Hammond et al.•American Journal of Political…•2007

  • The Dynamics of Persuasion

    Richard M Perloff•Dynamics of Persuasion•2016

  • Deciding to Decide

    John M Conley, H W Perry•Contemporary Sociology A Journal…•1993

  • The Roosevelt Court

    Open Access•Vincent M Barnett•Political Science Quarterly•1949

  • Picking Federal Judges

    Micheal W Giles, Virginia A Hettinger et al.•Political Research Quarterly•2001

  • The Influence of Oral Arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Timothy R Johnson, Paul J Wahlbeck et al.•American Political Science Review•2006

  • The Life of the Law

    Paul J Wahlbeck•The Journal of Politics•1997

  • Supreme Court Justices as Human Decision Makers

    Jeffrey A Segal•The Journal of Politics•1986

  • The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness

    Carl I Hovland, Walter Wei et al.•Public Opinion Quarterly•1951

  • The Supreme Court and Opinion Content

    Open Access•Pamela C Corley•Political Research Quarterly•2008

  • What Judges Want

    Lawrence Baum•Political Research Quarterly•1994

  • Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court

    James F Spriggs, Paul J Wahlbeck•Political Research Quarterly•1997

  • Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court

    Open Access•Robert W Langran•Perspectives on Politics•2005

  • The Hierarchy of Justice

    Donald R Songer, Jeffrey A Segal et al.•American Journal of Political…•1994

  • The case for motivated reasoning

    Ziva Kunda•Psychological Bulletin•1990

  • Understanding Judicial Hierarchy

    Open Access•Kevin M Scott•Law & Society Review•2006

  • Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead

    Open Access•M Galanter•Law & Society Review•1974

  • Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data

    Michael Laver, Kenneth Benoit et al.•American Political Science Review•2003

Obras citantes distintas40
Citas por año3,08
Intervalo de citas2013 - 2026 (14)
Velocidad de citacióncurrent
Altamente citadoNo
Tipos de citaNeutras: 40
Ethnos_APP • Proyecto Open Source • Licencia MIT • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacidad y Cookies • Documentación de la API: api.ethnos.app/docs • Código de la API: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Código del Frontend: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae