"Haves" versus "have nots" in state supreme courts: Allocating docket space and wins in power asymmetric cases

Law and Society Review

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 393-413

  Brace, Paul ^a   Hall, Melinda Gann ^b  

^a RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035527874     PISSN: 00239216     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3185407     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Atkins, Burton M. (1993) "Alternative Models of Appeal Mobilization in Judicial Hierarchies," 37 American J. of Political Science 780-98.
2. Atkins, Burton M., & Henry R. Glick (1974) "Formal Judicial Recruitment and State Supreme Court Decisions," 2 American Politics Quart. 427-49.
3. -(1976) "Environmental and Structural Variables as Determinants of Issues in State Courts of Last Resort," 20 American J. of Political Science 97-115.
4. Barker, Lucius (1967) "Third Parties in Litigation: A Systemic View of the Judicial Function," 29 J. of Politics, February, 41-69.
5. Brace, Paul, & Melinda Gann Hall (1995) "Studying Courts Comparatively: The View from the American States," 48 Political Research Quart. 5-29.
6. -(2000)
7. Brennan, William J., Jr. (1983) "Some Thoughts on the Supreme Court's Workload," 66 Judicature 230-34.
8. Caldeira, Gregory A., & John R. Wright (1988) "Organized Interests and Agenda-Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court," 82 American Political Science Rev. December, 1109-27.
9. -(1990) "Amici Curiae before the Supreme Court: Who Participates, When, and How Much?" 52 J. of Politics, August, 782-806.
10. Canon, Bradley C., & Dean Jaros (1970) "External Variables, Institutional Structure, and Dissent on State Supreme Courts," 4 Polity 185-200.
11. Champagne, Anthony, & Judith Haydel, eds. (1993) Judicial Reform in the States. Lanham, MD: Univ. Press of America.
12. Comparato, Scott (1999) "Interest Groups, Amicus Briefs, and State Supreme Courts: The Importance of Institutions," 20 American Rev. of Politics, Summer, 181-200.
13. Epp, Charles R. (1998) The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
14. Epstein, Lee (1990) "Interest Groups and the Courts," in J. B. Gates & C. A. Johnson, eds., The American Courts: A Critical Assessment. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
15. -(1994) "Exploring the Participation of Organized Interests in State Court Litigation," 47 Political Research Quart. 335-52.
16. Erickson, Robert S., Gerald C. Wright & John P. McIver (1993) Statehouse Democracy. Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
17. Farole, Donald J., Jr. (1998) Interest Groups and Judicial Federalism: Organizational Litigation in State Judiciaries. Westport, CT: Praeger.
18. -(1999) "Reexamining Litigant Success in State Supreme Courts," 33 Law & Society Review 1043-57.
19. Galanter, Marc (1974) "Why the 'Haves' Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change," 9 Law & Society Rev. 95-160.
20. -(1975) Afterword, "Explaining Litigation," 9 Law & Society Review 347-68.
21. Glick, Henry R., & George W. Pruet, Jr. (1986) "Dissent in State Supreme Courts: Patterns and Correlates of Conflict," In S. Goldman & C. Lamb, eds., Judicial Conflict and Consensus: Behavioral Studies of American Appellate Courts. Lexington, KY: Univ. Press of Kentucky.
22. Gray, Virginia, & David Lowery (1998) "Representational Concentration and Interest Community Size: A Population Ecology Interpretation," 51 Political Research Quart. 919-44.
23. Grossman, Joel B., Herbert M. Kritzer, Kristin Bumiller, Austin Sarat, Stephen McDougal & Richard Miller (1982) "Dimensions of Institutional Participation: Who Uses the Courts, and How?" 44 J. of Politics, February, 86-114.
24. Harrington, Christine B., & Daniel S. Ward (1995) "Patterns of Appellate Litigation," in L. Epstein, ed., Contemplating Courts. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
25. Kagen, Robert, Bliss Cartwright, Lawrence M. Friedman & Stanton Wheeler (1977) "The Business of State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970," 30 Stanford Law Review 121-56.
26. McGuire, Kevin T., & Gregory A. Caldeira (1993) "Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda-Setting in the Supreme Court," 89 American Political Science Rev., September, 717-26.
27. Murphy, Walter F. (1964) Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
28. O'Connor, Karen (1980) Women's Organizations' Use of the Courts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
29. Pacelle, Richard L., Jr. (1991) The Transformation of the Supreme Court's Agenda: From the New Deal to the Reagan Administration. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
30. -(1995) "The Dynamics and Determinants of Agenda Change in the Rehnquist Court," in L. Epstein, ed., Contemplating Courts. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
31. Perry, H. W., Jr. (1991) Deciding to Decide: Agenda-Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
32. Peterson, Anne (1999) "Examining the Role of Representational Bias Between Interest Groups and State Supreme Courts," 20 American Rev. of Politics, Summer, 201-12.
33. Provine, Doris Marie (1980) Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
34. Rohde, David W., & Harold J. Spaeth (1976) Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company.
35. Salokar, Rebecca Mae (1992) The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.
36. Schubert, Glendon (1962) "Policy Without Law: An Extension of the Certiorari Game," 14 Stanford Law Rev. 284-327.
37. Segal, Jeffrey A. (1988) "Amicus Briefs by the Solicitor General during the Warren and Burger Courts," 41 Western Political Quart., March, 134-44.
38. Sheehan, Reginald S., William Mishler & Donald R. Songer (1992) "Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court," 86 American Political Science Rev. 464-71.
39. Songer, Donald R., & Ashlyn Kuersten (1995) "The Success of Amici in State Supreme Courts," 48 Political Research Quart. 31-42.
40. Songer, Donald R., & Reginald Sheehan (1992) "Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals," 36 American J. of Political Science 235-58.
41. Songer, Donald R., Ashlyn Kuersten & Erin Kaheny (2000) "Why the Haves Don't Always Come Out Ahead: Repeat Players Meet Amici Curiae for the Disadvantaged," 55 Political Research Quart. 537-56.
42. Songer, Donald R., Reginald S. Sheehan & Susan Brodie Haire (1999) "Do the 'Haves' Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter's Framework to Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925-1988," 33 Law & Society Rev. 811-32.
43. Spriggs, James F., II, & Paul J. Wahlbeck (1997) "Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court," 50 Political Research Quart., June, 365-36.
44. Tanenhaus, Joseph, Marvin Schick, Matthew Muraskin & Daniel Rosen (1963) "The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory," in G. Schubert, ed., Judicial Decision Making. New York: Free Press.
45. Wanner, Craig (1974) "The Public Ordering of Private Relations: Part One: Initiating Civil Cases in Urban Trial Courts," 8 Law & Society Rev. 421-40.
46. Wheeler, Stanton, Bliss Cartwright, Robert A. Kagan & Lawrence M. Friedman (1987) "Do the 'Haves' Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970," 21 Law & Society Rev. 403-45.