Virginia A Hettinger
Biographic Data
| ID | 1493230 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Virginia A Hettinger |
| GIVEN NAMES | Virginia A |
| FAMILY NAME | Hettinger |
| SIGNATURE | HETTINGER V A |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of Connecticut |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-8193-4248 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 7 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 270 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 7 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2001 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2007 |
| H-INDEX | 7 |
The Etiology of the Occurrence of En Banc Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals
The U.S. Courts of Appeals, working principally through three‐judge panels, constitute important final arbiters of the meaning of the federal constitution, laws, and regulations and, hence, significant policymakers within the federal system. En banc rehearing—reconsideration of the decision of a three‐judge panel by the full complement of judges appointed to the circuit—is an institutional device that ensures circuit decisions are in line with th…
Splitting the Difference: Modeling Appellate Court Decisions with Mixed Outcomes
In rendering a decision in a particular case, judges are not limited to finding simply for the appellant or for the respondent. Rather, in many cases, they have the option to find for the former on one or more issues and for the latter on one or more other issues. By thus "splitting the difference," judges can render a judgment that favors both litigants to some degree. What accounts for such mixed outcomes? Several theoretical perspectives provi…
Explaining the Incidence and Timing of Congressional Responses to the U.S. Supreme Court
Sparked by interest in game-theoretic representations of the separation of powers, empirical work examining congressional overrides of Supreme Court statutory decisions has burgeoned in recent years. Much of this work has been hampered, however, by the relative rarity of such events; as has long been noted, congressional attention to the Court is limited, and most Court decisions represent the last word on statutory interpretation. With this fact…
Acclimation Effects and Separate Opinion Writing in the U.S. Courts of Appeals
Objective. This article investigates the existence of a freshman effect on separate opinion authorship on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. First, we evaluate the extent to which freshman judges demonstrate unique behavior with respect to writing concurring and dissenting opinions. Second, we examine the potential for background factors to condition any freshman effect. Methods. Individual judges' decisions to author separate opinions, drawn from the C…
Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals
Students of judicial behavior have increasingly turned to strategic accounts to understand judicial decision making. Scholarship on the Supreme Court and state high courts suggests that the decision to dissent is better understood in light of strategic considerations rather than simply reflecting ideological disagreement. We investigate whether these findings comport with behavior by judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. We develop a spatial mode…
Separate Opinion Writing On The United States Courts Of Appeals
In this article, we set ourselves to the task of identifying the determinants of separate opinion writing on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Utilizing a new institutional theoretical framework, we evaluate a series of hypotheses concerning the connection between separate opinion writing behavior and attitudinal, institutional, and legal factors. Within this broad theoretical framework, we are particularly sensitive to the manner in which judges may a…
Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas
The importance of lower federal courts in the policymaking process has stimulated extensive research programs focused on the process of selecting the judges of these courts and the factors influencing their decisions. The present study employs judicial decisionmaking in the U.S. Courts of Appeals as a window through which to reexamine the politics of selection to the lower courts. It differs from previous studies of selection in three ways. First…
Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas
The importance of lower federal courts in the policymaking process has stimulated extensive research programs focused on the process of selecting the judges of these courts and the factors influencing their decisions. The present study employs judicial decisionmaking in the U.S. Courts of Appeals as a window through which to reexamine the politics of selection to the lower courts. It differs from previous studies of selection in three ways. First…
Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals
Students of judicial behavior have increasingly turned to strategic accounts to understand judicial decision making. Scholarship on the Supreme Court and state high courts suggests that the decision to dissent is better understood in light of strategic considerations rather than simply reflecting ideological disagreement. We investigate whether these findings comport with behavior by judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. We develop a spatial mode…
Explaining the Incidence and Timing of Congressional Responses to the U.S. Supreme Court
Sparked by interest in game-theoretic representations of the separation of powers, empirical work examining congressional overrides of Supreme Court statutory decisions has burgeoned in recent years. Much of this work has been hampered, however, by the relative rarity of such events; as has long been noted, congressional attention to the Court is limited, and most Court decisions represent the last word on statutory interpretation. With this fact…
The Etiology of the Occurrence of En Banc Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals
The U.S. Courts of Appeals, working principally through three‐judge panels, constitute important final arbiters of the meaning of the federal constitution, laws, and regulations and, hence, significant policymakers within the federal system. En banc rehearing—reconsideration of the decision of a three‐judge panel by the full complement of judges appointed to the circuit—is an institutional device that ensures circuit decisions are in line with th…
Acclimation Effects and Separate Opinion Writing in the U.S. Courts of Appeals
Objective. This article investigates the existence of a freshman effect on separate opinion authorship on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. First, we evaluate the extent to which freshman judges demonstrate unique behavior with respect to writing concurring and dissenting opinions. Second, we examine the potential for background factors to condition any freshman effect. Methods. Individual judges' decisions to author separate opinions, drawn from the C…
Separate Opinion Writing On The United States Courts Of Appeals
In this article, we set ourselves to the task of identifying the determinants of separate opinion writing on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Utilizing a new institutional theoretical framework, we evaluate a series of hypotheses concerning the connection between separate opinion writing behavior and attitudinal, institutional, and legal factors. Within this broad theoretical framework, we are particularly sensitive to the manner in which judges may a…
Splitting the Difference: Modeling Appellate Court Decisions with Mixed Outcomes
In rendering a decision in a particular case, judges are not limited to finding simply for the appellant or for the respondent. Rather, in many cases, they have the option to find for the former on one or more issues and for the latter on one or more other issues. By thus "splitting the difference," judges can render a judgment that favors both litigants to some degree. What accounts for such mixed outcomes? Several theoretical perspectives provi…
Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas
The importance of lower federal courts in the policymaking process has stimulated extensive research programs focused on the process of selecting the judges of these courts and the factors influencing their decisions. The present study employs judicial decisionmaking in the U.S. Courts of Appeals as a window through which to reexamine the politics of selection to the lower courts. It differs from previous studies of selection in three ways. First…
Acclimation Effects and Separate Opinion Writing in the U.S. Courts of Appeals
Objective. This article investigates the existence of a freshman effect on separate opinion authorship on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. First, we evaluate the extent to which freshman judges demonstrate unique behavior with respect to writing concurring and dissenting opinions. Second, we examine the potential for background factors to condition any freshman effect. Methods. Individual judges' decisions to author separate opinions, drawn from the C…
Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals
Students of judicial behavior have increasingly turned to strategic accounts to understand judicial decision making. Scholarship on the Supreme Court and state high courts suggests that the decision to dissent is better understood in light of strategic considerations rather than simply reflecting ideological disagreement. We investigate whether these findings comport with behavior by judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. We develop a spatial mode…
Separate Opinion Writing On The United States Courts Of Appeals
In this article, we set ourselves to the task of identifying the determinants of separate opinion writing on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Utilizing a new institutional theoretical framework, we evaluate a series of hypotheses concerning the connection between separate opinion writing behavior and attitudinal, institutional, and legal factors. Within this broad theoretical framework, we are particularly sensitive to the manner in which judges may a…
Explaining the Incidence and Timing of Congressional Responses to the U.S. Supreme Court
Sparked by interest in game-theoretic representations of the separation of powers, empirical work examining congressional overrides of Supreme Court statutory decisions has burgeoned in recent years. Much of this work has been hampered, however, by the relative rarity of such events; as has long been noted, congressional attention to the Court is limited, and most Court decisions represent the last word on statutory interpretation. With this fact…
The Etiology of the Occurrence of En Banc Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals
The U.S. Courts of Appeals, working principally through three‐judge panels, constitute important final arbiters of the meaning of the federal constitution, laws, and regulations and, hence, significant policymakers within the federal system. En banc rehearing—reconsideration of the decision of a three‐judge panel by the full complement of judges appointed to the circuit—is an institutional device that ensures circuit decisions are in line with th…
Splitting the Difference: Modeling Appellate Court Decisions with Mixed Outcomes
In rendering a decision in a particular case, judges are not limited to finding simply for the appellant or for the respondent. Rather, in many cases, they have the option to find for the former on one or more issues and for the latter on one or more other issues. By thus "splitting the difference," judges can render a judgment that favors both litigants to some degree. What accounts for such mixed outcomes? Several theoretical perspectives provi…
Judicial and Constitutional Studies (7 works) · Law (7 works) · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems (7 works) · Legal and Constitutional Studies (7 works) · Political science (7 works) · Politics (6 works) · Law (5 works) · Psychology (5 works) · Computer Science (4 works) · Ideology (3 works)