U.S. Courts of Appeals Judges’ Review of Federal Natural Resource Agencies’ Decisions
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12164591 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Robert W Malmsheimer (0000-0001-9446-6589, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, corresponding author), ROBERT MALMSHEIMER, Donald W Floyd (SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry), DONALD FLOYD |
| Year | 2004 |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 533-546 |
| Publication date | 2004-05-27 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Society & Natural Resources (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0894-1920 • E-ISSN: 1521-0723 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/08941920490452517 |
| OpenAlex | W2117443573 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 31 |
Commentators have suggested that federal judges who review federal natural resource agencies’ management decisions sometimes substitute their own preferences for agencies’ decisions. We used four competing judicial decision-making models to test this assertion. We analyzed all published cases decided by the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1970 to 1997 in which a federal natural resource agency was the defendant in a case involving natural resource statutes. All four models significantly classified judges’ opinions on the model developmental data. However, when we validated the models on independent data, only the attitudinal model was statistically significant. The results establish that while facts and precedent are important, judges respond to multiple stimuli when making decisions. This research empirically demonstrates that some judges do not function as objective decision makers in some natural resource management cases, and develops variables and models researchers can use to investigate how the legal system affects natural resources management
Agency (philosophy · Assertion · Business · Function (biology · Judicial opinion · Judicial review · Natural (archaeology · Natural resource · Natural resource management · Political science · Public relations · Resource (disambiguation · Resource management (computing · Sociology · Statute · Computer Science · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal and Constitutional Studies
Judicial policies
Judges on Judging
Judicial Review of Administrative Agencies
Judicial Review of Administrative Agencies
Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices
Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited
Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices
Integrating Alternative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Voting
Supreme Court Justices as Human Decision Makers
The Interplay of Preferences, Case Facts, Context, and Rules in the Politics of Judicial Choice
Buyer Beware? Presidential Success through Supreme Court Appointments
From simplicity to complexity
The Supreme Court and Criminal Justice Disputes
Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals
The Hierarchy of Justice
Measuring Political Preferences
Do The "Haves" Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970
On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making
Recurring Litigants
The Impact of Party and Region on Voting Decisions in the United States Courts of Appeals, 1955-1986
Contextual Influences on Court Outcomes
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,5 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2024 (1) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |