Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Counterbalancing the disadvantages of the “Have Nots”

An examination of the impact of amicus participation in state supreme court cases

Bibliographic Data

ID13010397
AuthorsBianca Easterly (0000-0001-8993-3701, Lamar University, corresponding author)
Year2019
Volume8
Issue4
Pages579-599
Publication date2019-06-15
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInterest Groups & Advocacy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2047-7414 • E-ISSN: 2047-7422
PublisherPalgrave Macmillan (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1057/s41309-019-00057-w
OpenAlexW2952490946
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited58

Disadvantaged · Government (linguistics · Political science · Power (physics · Sociology · State (computer science · Supreme court · Criminal Law and Evidence · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Legal and Constitutional Studies

  • Breaking down barriers to litigation and judicial advocacy research

    Open Access•Christopher M Rea, Jennifer Kagan et al.•Interest Groups & Advocacy•2026

  • The governmental process

    David Bicknell Truman•The governmental process•1981

  • Mobilizing Interest Groups in America

    Open Access•Jack L Walker, Jack Walker•Mobilizing interest groups in…•1991

  • The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court

    Joseph D Kearney, Thomas W Merrill•University of Pennsylvania Law…•2000

  • Frenemies of the Court

    Open Access•Helen A Anderson•SSRN Electronic Journal•2014

  • The Use of Amicus Briefs

    Open Access•Perry Mcd Collins•Annual Review of Law and Social…•2018

  • Judges and Friends

    Open Access•Perry Mcd Collins, Wendy L Martinek•American Politics Research•2014

  • Crime and Punishment in American History

    John R Sutton, Lawrence M Friedman•Contemporary Sociology A Journal…•1994

  • Friends of the Circuits

    Open Access•Perry Mcd Collins, Paul M Collins et al.•Social Science Quarterly•2010

  • Why Do Interest Groups Engage the Judiciary? Policy Wishes and Structural Needs

    Open Access•Rorie Spill Solberg, Eric N Waltenburg•Social Science Quarterly•2006

  • Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation

    Open Access•Karen O’connor, Karen O'Connor et al.•Law & Society Review•1982

  • Crime and Punishment in American History

    Samuel Walker, Lawrence M Friedman•Journal of American History•1994

  • The Labeling of Convicted Felons and Its Consequences for Recidivism

    Open Access•Ted Chiricos, K Barrick et al.•Criminology•2007

  • Counteractive Lobbying in the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Lisa A Solowiej, Perry Mcd Collins et al.•American Politics Research•2009

  • Friends of the Court

    Open Access•Perry Mcd Collins, Paul M Collins•Law & Society Review•2004

  • When to Befriend the Court? Examining State Amici Curiae Participation Before the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Colin Provost•State Politics & Policy Quarterly•2011

  • Explaining Executive Success in the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Kevin T Mcguire•Political Research Quarterly•1998

  • Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Perry Mcd Collins, Paul M Collins•Political Research Quarterly•2007

  • 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

  • Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Gregory A Caldeira, John Wright et al.•American Political Science Review•1988

  • The Rise of Conservative Interest Group Litigation

    Karen O''Connor, Karen O’connor et al.•The Journal of Politics•1983

  • Neo-Institutionalism and Dissent in State Supreme Courts

    Paul Brace, Melinda Gann Hall•The Journal of Politics•1990

  • Interest Group Activity in the States

    Anthony J Nownes, Patricia K Freeman et al.•The Journal of Politics•1998

  • Third Parties in Litigation

    Lucius J Barker•The Journal of Politics•1967

  • Integrated Models of Judicial Dissent

    Paul Brace, Melinda Gann Hall•The Journal of Politics•1993

  • Measuring the Preferences of State Supreme Court Judges

    Paul Brace, Laura Langer et al.•The Journal of Politics•2000

  • Innovation and Reinvention in State Policymaking

    Henry R Glick, Scott P Hay et al.•The Journal of Politics•1991

  • Interest-Group Litigation in Federal District Court

    Susan M Olson•The Journal of Politics•1990

  • Presidential Capital and the Supreme Court Confirmation Process

    Timothy R Johnson, Jason M Roberts•The Journal of Politics•2004

  • Repeat Players in the Supreme Court

    Kevin T Mcguire•The Journal of Politics•1995

  • Constituent Influence in State Supreme Courts

    Melinda Gann Hall•The Journal of Politics•1987

  • New Data on State Supreme Court Cases

    Open Access•Matthew E K Hall, Jason Harold Windett•State Politics & Policy Quarterly•2013

  • Lobbying Justice(s)? Exploring the Nature of Amici Influence in State Supreme Court Decision Making

    Open Access•Jenna Becker Kane•State Politics & Policy Quarterly•2017

  • Exploring the Participation of Organized Interests in State Court Litigation

    Open Access•Lee Epstein•Political Research Quarterly•1994

  • Studying Courts Comparatively

    Open Access•Paul Brace, Melinda Gann Hall•Political Research Quarterly•1995

  • Why the Haves Don't Always Come Out Ahead

    Open Access•Donald R Songer, Donald Songer et al.•Political Research Quarterly•2000

  • The Success of Amici in State Supreme Courts

    Open Access•Donald R Songer, Ashlyn Kuersten•Political Research Quarterly•1995

  • Communicating to the Courts and Beyond

    Open Access•Rorie L Spill Solberg, Rorie Solberg et al.•Legislative Studies Quarterly•2004

  • State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty, and the Practice of Electing Judges

    Open Access•Paul Brace, Brent D Boyea•American Journal of Political…•2008

  • Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals

    Donald R Songer, Reginald S Sheehan•American Journal of Political…•1992

  • Friends as Foes

    Open Access•Gregg Ivers, Karen O''Connor et al.•Law & Policy•1987

  • Haves" Versus "Have Nots" in State Supreme Courts

    Open Access•Paul Brace, Melinda Gann Hall•Law & Society Review•2001

  • Crime and Punishment in American History

    Roger Lane, Lawrence Friedman et al.•The Journal of Interdisciplinary…•1995

  • Reexamining Litigant Success in State Supreme Courts

    Open Access•Donald J Farole•Law & Society Review•1999

  • Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead

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

  • Do The "Haves" Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970

    Open Access•Stanton Wheeler, Bliss Cartwright et al.•Law & Society Review•1987

  • The States and the Death Penalty

    Open Access•David C Nice•The Western Political Quarterly•1992

  • Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General during the Warren and Burger Courts

    Open Access•Jeffrey A Segal•The Western Political Quarterly•1988

  • The Transmission of Legal Precedent

    Open Access•Gregory A Caldeira•American Political Science Review•1985

  • Ideology, Status, and The Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court

    Open Access•Reginald S Sheehan, William Mishler et al.•American Political Science Review•1992

Unique citing works1
Citations per year1
Citation span2026 - 2026 (1)
Citation velocitycurrent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 1

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae