Pular para o conteúdo principal

ETHNOS_APP

Início • Busca • Periódicos • Lista 0

The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions

Conflict as a Predictive Variable

Dados Bibliográficos

ID7595445
AutoresSidney Ulmer, S Sidney Ulmer (University of Kentucky, autor correspondente)
Ano1984
Volume78
Fascículo4
Páginas901-911
Data de publicação1984-12-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoAmerican Political Science Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0003-0554 • E-ISSN: 1537-5943
EditoraCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/1955797
OpenAlexW2318801493
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas44
Referências citadas11

In the period from 1947 to 1976, the United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari in more than half the cases involving conflict with Supreme Court precedent or intercircuit conflict. In both instances, the denial rate has been higher in the Burger Court than in the Vinson and Warren Courts and denial has been greater for intercircuit conflict cases than for cases in which the ruling in the lower court was in conflict with one or more Supreme Court precedents. When conflict was conceptualized as a predictor of decision and examined along with federal government as petitioning party, economic issues, and civil liberty issues, it was found to have 4 to 7 times the predictive power of the other variables combined for the Vinson and Warren Courts. For the Burger Court, the petitioning party variable was found to be a better predictor than conflict, but conflict was a much better predictor than the subject variables. Discriminant function models using the four predictor variables were able to account for up to 36.9% of the variance in the Supreme Court's certiorari decisions, almost all of which was the result of the contributions made by the conflict and party factors

Certiorari · Court of record · Denial · Majority opinion · Original jurisdiction · Political science · Supreme court · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Psychology

  • Communication of Appellate Decisions

    Open Access•Burton M Atkins•Law & Society Review•1990

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

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

  • Supreme Court Support for the Solicitor General

    Jeffrey A Segal•The Western Political Quarterly•1990

  • The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination

    Open Access•Jeffrey A Segal, Cheryl D Reedy•The Western Political Quarterly•1988

  • Toward a New Methodology for Legal Research in Criminal Justice

    Claire Angelique R I Nolasco, Michael S Vaughn et al.•Journal of Criminal Justice…•2010

  • U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal Appellate Courts

    Christopher J W Zorn, Christopher Zorn•Political Research Quarterly•2002

  • The Social Movement Turn in Law

    Open Access•Scott L Cummings•Law & Social Inquiry•2017

  • Puppeteers or Agents? What Lazarus's Closed Chambers Adds to Our Understanding of Law Clerks at the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Samuel Kenney, Sally J Kenney•Law & Social Inquiry•2000

  • The Etiology of the Occurrence of En Banc Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals

    Open Access•Micheal W Giles, Virginia A Hettinger et al.•American Journal of Political…•2007

  • Selecting Appeals for Judicial Review in Canada

    Roy B Flemming, Glen S Krutz et al.•The Journal of Politics•2002

  • Setting a Judicial Agenda

    Micheal W Giles, Thomas G Walker et al.•The Journal of Politics•2006

  • Workload Influences on Supreme Court Case Acceptance Rates, 1975-1984

    Open Access•Joseph Jucewicz, Lawrence Baum•The Western Political Quarterly•1990

  • Presidential Address

    Karen O’connor, Karen O'Connor•The Journal of Politics•2001

  • The Path of Law

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

  • Keepers of the Covenant or Platonic Guardians? Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Richard L Pacelle, Bryan W Marshall et al.•American Politics Research•2007

  • Aggressive Grants by Affirm-Minded Justices

    Open Access•Sara C Benesh, Saul Brenner et al.•American Politics Research•2002

  • Case Selection and Decisionmaking in the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Lawrence Baum•Law & Society Review•1993

  • Law, Politics, and Judicial Decision Making

    Open Access•Charles A Johnson•Law & Society Review•1987

  • Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of Lower Court Compliance

    Open Access•David E Klein, David Klein et al.•Law & Society Review•2003

  • U.S. Supreme Court Decision-Making and the Free Exercise Clause

    Open Access•Joseph Ignagni, Joseph A Ignagni•The Review of Politics•1993

  • Measuring Policy Content on the U.S. Supreme Court

    Kevin T Mcguire, Georg Vanberg et al.•The Journal of Politics•2009

  • Governmental Litigants, Underdogs, and Civil Liberties in the Supreme Court

    Sidney Ulmer, S Sidney Ulmer•The Journal of Politics•1985

  • The Supreme Court and Percolation in the Lower Courts

    Tom S Clark, Jonathan P Kastellec•The Journal of Politics•2013

  • An Empirical Test of the Rational-Actor Theory of Litigation

    Donald R Songer, Charles M Cameron et al.•The Journal of Politics•1995

  • The Effect of Politically Salient Decisions on the U.S. Supreme Court's Agenda

    Vanessa A Baird•The Journal of Politics•2004

  • Strategic Policy Considerations and Voting Fluidity on the Burger Court

    Open Access•Forrest Maltzman, Paul J Wahlbeck•American Political Science Review•1996

  • Issue Fluidity on the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Kevin T Mcguire, Barbara Palmer•American Political Science Review•1995

  • 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

  • Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity

    Open Access•Kevin T Mcguire, Gregory A Caldeira•American Political Science Review•1993

  • Ideological Competition and Conflict in the Judicial Hierarchy

    Open Access•Joshua A Strayhorn•American Journal of Political…•2020

  • Signals from the Tenth Justice

    Open Access•Michael A Bailey, Brian Kamoie et al.•American Journal of Political…•2005

  • 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

  • What To Do About Atheoretic Lags

    Open Access•Skyler J Cranmer, Sue Cranmer et al.•Political Science Research and…•2017

  • Justice-level heterogeneity in certiorari voting

    Open Access•Gregory A Caldeira, Daniel Lempert•Political Science Research and…•2022

  • Issue Fluidity and Agenda Setting on the Warren Court

    Open Access•Barbara Palmer•Political Research Quarterly•1999

  • U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal Appellate Courts

    Open Access•Christopher J W Zorn, Christopher Zorn•Political Research Quarterly•2002

  • Getting Attention

    Open Access•C Scott Peters•Political Research Quarterly•2007

  • The Discuss List

    Open Access•Gregory A Caldeira, John Wright et al.•Law & Society Review•1990

  • Seasonal Affective Disorder

    Open Access•William D Blake, Hans J Hacker et al.•Law & Society Review•2015

  • The Impact of Supreme Court Activity on the Judicial Agenda

    Open Access•Deborah Rice, Douglas Rice•Law & Society Review•2014

  • Institutional Arrangements and the Dynamics of Agenda Formation in the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals

    Open Access•Mark S Hurwitz•Law & Policy•2006

  • Competing signals in the judicial hierarchy

    Open Access•Joshua A Strayhorn•Journal of Theoretical Politics•2019

  • The New Judicial Politics of Legal Doctrine

    Jeffrey R Lax•Annual Review of Political Science•2011

  • Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy

    Open Access•Charles M Cameron, Jeffrey A Segal et al.•American Political Science Review•2000

  • Conflict with Supreme Court Precedent and the Granting of Plenary Review

    S Sidney Ulmer•The Journal of Politics•1983

  • Frontiers of Judicial Research

    Francis D Wormuth, Joel B Grossman et al.•The Western Political Quarterly•1969

  • Regression Analysis and Discriminant Analysis

    Open Access•Fred Kort•American Political Science Review•1973

  • The Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction

    Stuart H Teger, Douglas Kosinski•The Journal of Politics•1980

  • The New Certiorari Game

    Saul Brenner•The Journal of Politics•1979

  • Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari

    Donald R Songer•The Journal of Politics•1979

Obras citantes distintas44
Citações por ano1,07
Intervalo de citações1985 - 2025 (41)
Velocidade de citaçãorecent
Altamente citadoNão
Tipos de citaçãoNeutras: 44
Ethnos_APP • Projeto Open Source • Licença MIT • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacidade e Cookies • Documentação da API: api.ethnos.app/docs • Código da API: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Código do Frontend: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae