Amicus curiae and the role of information at the Supreme Court

Political Research Quarterly

Volumn 50, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 365-386

  Spriggs II, James F ^a   Wahlbeck, Paul J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031512914     PISSN: 10659129     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/106591299705000206     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Barker, Lucius. 1967. "Third Parties in Litigation: A Systematic View of the Judicial Function." Journal of Politics 29: 41-69.
2. Behuniak-Long, Susan. 1991. "Friendly Fire: Amici Curiae and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services." Judicature 74: 261-70.
3. Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1988. "Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court." American Political Science Review 82: 1109-1127.
4. _. 1990. "Amici Curiae before the Supreme Court: Who Participates, When, and How Much?" Journal of Politics 52: 782-806.
5. Cohen, Jacob. 1968. "Weighted Kappa: Nominal Scale Agreement with Provision for Scaled Disagreement or Partial Credit." Psychological Bulletin 70: 213-20.
6. Cortner, Richard C. 1968. "Strategies and Tactics of Litigants in Constitutional Cases." Journal of Public Law 17: 287-307.
7. Ennis, Bruce J. 1984. "Symposium on Supreme Court Advocacy: Effective Amicus Briefs." Catholic University Law Review 33: 603-609.
8. Epstein, Lee. 1985. Conservatives in Court. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
9. _. 1993. "Interest Group Litigation During the Rehnquist Court Era." Journal of Law and Politics 9: 639-717.
10. Epstein, Lee, and Joseph F. Kobylka. 1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
11. Epstein, Lee, and C. K. Rowland. 1986. "Interest Groups in the Courts: Do Groups Fare Better?" In Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis, eds. Interest Group Politics, 2d ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
12. _. 1991. "Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility in the Courts." American Political Science Review 85: 205-17.
13. Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Timothy Johnson. 1996. "The Claim of Issue Creation on the U.S. Supreme Court." American Political Science Review. Forthcoming.
14. Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, Harold J. Spaeth, and Thomas G. Walker. 1994. The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions, and Developments. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
15. Epstein, Lee, and Thomas G. Walker. 1995. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice, 2d ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
16. Galanter, Marc. 1974. "Why the 'Haves' Come Out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal Change." Law and Society Review 9: 95-160.
17. Gates, John B., and Glenn A. Phelps. 1996. "Intentionalism in Constitutional Opinions." Political Research Quarterly 49: 245-61.
18. Greene, William H. 1993. Econometric Analysis, 2d ed. New York: Macmillan.
19. Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong. 1976. 426 U.S. 88.
20. Heller v. Doe. 1992. 113 S. Ct. 2637.
21. Ivers, Gregg, and Karen O'Connor. 1987. "Friends as Foes: The Amicus Curiae Participation and Effectiveness of the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans for Effective Law Enforcement in Criminal Cases, 1969-1982." Law and Policy 9: 161-78.
22. Johnson, Charles A. 1987. "Content-Analytic Techniques and Judicial Research." American Politics Quarterly 15: 169-97.
23. Kmenta, Jan. 1986. Elements of Econometrics, 2d ed. New York: Macmillan.
24. Knight, Jack. 1993. "Interpretation as Social Interaction." Paper presented at the Political Economy of the Law Conference, Wallis Institute, University of Rochester.
25. Krippendorff, Klaus. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage.
26. Krislov, Samuel. 1963. "The Amicus Curiae Brief From Friendship to Advocacy." Yale Law Journal 72: 694-721.
27. Kobylka, Joseph. 1987. "A Court-Created Context for Group Litigation: Libertarian Groups and Obscenity." Journal of Politics 49: 1061-78.
28. Landis, Richard J., and Gary G. Koch. 1977. "The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data." Biometrics 33: 159-74.
29. Maddala, G. S. 1992. Introduction to Econometrics, 2d ed. New York: Macmillan.
30. Mapp v. Ohio. 1961. 367 U.S. 643.
31. McGuire, Kevin T. 1993. The Supreme Court Bar: Legal Elites in the Washington Community. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
32. _. 1994. "Amici Curiae and Strategies for Gaining Access to the Supreme Court." Political Research Quarterly 47: 821-37.
33. _. 1995. "Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success." Journal of Politics 57: 187-96.
34. McGuire, Kevin T., and Barbara Palmer. 1995. "Issue Fluidity on the U.S. Supreme Court." American Political Science Review 89: 691-702.
35. McNary v. Haitian Centers Council. 1992. 113 S.Ct. 2549.
36. Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37. O'Connor, Karen. 1980. Women's Organizations' Use of the Courts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
38. O'Connor, Karen, and Lee Epstein. 1981-82. "Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation: An Appraisal of Hakman's 'Folklore'." Law and Society Review 16: 311-20.
39. _. 1983a. "Court Rules and Workload: A Case Study of Rules Governing Amicus Curiae Participation." Justice System Journal 8: 35-45.
40. _. 1983b. "The Rise of Conservative Interest Group Litigation." Journal of Politics 45: 479-89.
41. Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113.
42. Rohde, David W., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: Freeman.
43. Segal, Jeffrey A. 1988. "Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General During the Warren and Burger Courts." Western Political Quarterly 41: 135-44.
44. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Sheehan, Reginald S., William Mishler, and Donald R. Songer. 1992. "Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the Supreme Court." American Political Science Review 86: 464-71.
46. Songer, Donald R., and Reginald G. Sheehan. 1992. "Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals." American Journal of Political Science 36: 235-58.
47. _. 1993. "Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court." Political Research Quarterly 46: 339-54.
48. Sorauf, Frank J. 1976. The Wall of Separation: The Constitutional Politics of Church and State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49. Spaeth, Harold J. 1994. United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, 1953-1992 Terms, 5th ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
50. Spriggs, James F., II. 1996. "The Supreme Court and Federal Administrative Agencies: A Resource-Based Theory and Analysis of Judicial Impact." American Journal of Political Science 40: 1122-51.
51. Stern, Robert L., Eugene Gressman, Stephen M. Shapiro, and Kenneth S. Geller. 1993. Supreme Court Practice, 7th ed. Washington, DC: The Bureau of National Affairs.
52. Stewart, Potter. 1976. "Letter to Justice Stevens, April 14." Available injustice William Brennan's papers, Box 367. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.
53. Vose, Clement E. 1959. Caucasians Only: The Supreme Court, the NAACP, and the Restrictive Covenant Cases. Berkeley: University of California Press.
54. Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1997. "The Life of the Law: Judicial Politics and Legal Change." Journal of Politics 59 (August): forthcoming.
55. Wasby, Stephen L. 1984. "How Planned is 'Planned Litigation.'" American Bar Foundation Research Journal 1984: 83-138.
56. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. 1989. 492 U.S. 490.