The Supreme Court's Impact on the Law of Libel
Compliance by Lower Federal Courts
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3132933 |
|---|---|
| Authors | John Gruhl (University of Nebraska–Lincoln, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1980 |
| Volume | 33 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 502-519 |
| Publication date | 1980-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Western Political Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0043-4078 • E-ISSN: 2325-8675 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591298003300405 |
| OpenAlex | W2051462924 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 45 |
EGAL SCHOLARS traditionally analogized the federal judiciary to a pyramid, with the Supreme Court at the apex, the courts of appeals in the middle, and the district courts at the base. The scholars focused their attention upon the Supreme Court, because they believed that this was where the authoritative decisions were made. For them, the study of public law revolved around analysis of Supreme Court decisions; it was essentially the study of constitutional law. The scholars did not focus much of their attention upon the lower courts, because they assumed that these courts obeyed the dictates of the Supreme Court. short, the scholars subscribed to a hierarchical model to explain the Supreme Court's relationship with the lower courts. But beginning in the 1950s, and continuing through the 1960s and 1970s, revisionist scholars criticized this model. They said it reflected an myth' and therefore provided an unsatisfactory explanation of the Supreme Court's relationship with the lower courts. Jerome Frank wrote, In legal mythology one of the most popular and most harmful myths is the upper-court myth, the myth that upper courts are the heart of courthouse government .... considerable part, this belief arises from the fallacious notion that the legal rules, supervised by the upper courts, control decisions.2
Compliance (psychology) · Concurring opinion · Court of record · Federal court · Judicial Independence · Majority opinion · Mythology · Original jurisdiction · Political science · Precedent · Remand (court procedure) · Sociology · Supreme court · American Constitutional Law and Politics · History · Law · Law, Rights, and Freedoms · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Legal Cases and Commentary · Legal Systems and Judicial Processes · Psychology · Social Psychology
Judicial Review as a Limit on Government Domination
A Neo-Institutional Explanation of State Supreme Court Responses in Search and Seizure Cases
Strategic Anticipation and the Hierarchy of Justice in U.S. District Courts
Uncertain Precedent
The Pendulum of Precedent
Assessing the Impact of Presidential and Home State Influences on Judicial Decisionmaking in the United States Courts of Appeals
Competing Constraints
What's Law Got to Do with It? Judicial Behavioralists Test the “Legal Model” of Judicial Decision Making
Compliance
Policy Convergence in a Federal Judicial System
The Hierarchy of Justice
Case Selection in Judicial Impact Research
Law, Politics, and Judicial Decision Making
Can Social Science Explain Organizational Noncompliance with Environmental Law
Hierarchical and Collegial Politics on the U.S. Courts of Appeals
Overruled
The Costs of Going Global
Understanding Judicial Power
Rules, Standards, and Lower Court Decisions
Delegating Discretion
Macro Implementation
Strategic Defiance and Compliance in the U.S. Courts of Appeals
The Semiconstrained Court
The Influence of Precedent on State Supreme Courts
Competing signals in the judicial hierarchy
Testing Judicial Power
Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of Lower Court Compliance
Appellate Court Supervision in the Federal Judiciary
The (Dis)Advantage of Certainty
Supreme Court Impact on Compliance and Outcomes
| Unique citing works | 30 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,15 |
| Citation span | 1987 - 2021 (35) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 29 |