Information, oral arguments, and supreme court decision making

American Politics Research

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 331-351

  Johnson, Timothy R ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035629337     PISSN: 1532673X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X01029004001     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Baum, L. (1995). Symposium on oral argument. Law and Courts, 5(1), 3-5.
2. Benoit, W. (1989). Attorney argumentation and Supreme Court opinions. Argumentation and Advocacy, 26, 22-38.
3. Caldeira, G., & Wright, J. (1988). Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1109-1127.
4. Cohen, D. (1978). Judicial predictability in United States Supreme Court oral advocacy: Analysis of the oral argument in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill. University of Puget Sound Law Review, 2, 89-136.
5. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
6. Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (1998a). The choices justices make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
7. Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (1998b). Mapping out the strategic terrain: The informational role of amici curiae. In H. Gillman & C. Clayton (Eds.), Supreme Court politics: Institutional perspectives (pp. 215-235). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Epstein, L., & Kobylka, J. (1992). The Supreme Court and legal change. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
9. Epstein, L., Segal, J., & Johnson, T. (1996). The claim of issue creation on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 34(4), 845-852.
10. Epstein, L., Walker, T., & Dixon, W. (1988). On the mysterious demise of consensual norms in the United States Supreme Court. Journal of Politics, 50 (2), 361-388.
11. Eskridge, W. N., Jr. (1991). Reneging on history? Playing the court/Congress/president civil right's game. California Law Review, 79, 613-684.
12. Hoekstra, V., & Johnson, T. (1997, April). Re-argument as strategic interaction on the United States Supreme Court. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
13. Knight, J., & Epstein, L. (1996). The norm of stare decisis. American Journal of Political Science, 40 (4), 1018-1035.
14. Landis, R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
15. Martin, A. (1997, May). Designing statistical tests of formal theories: The separation of powers and the Supreme Court. Paper presented at the meeting of the Law and Society Association, St. Louis, MO.
16. McGuire, K., & Palmer, B. (1995). Issue fluidity on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 89 (3), 691-702.
17. McGuire, K., & Palmer, B. (1996). Issues, agendas, and decision making on the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 34 (4), 853-865.
18. Prettyman, E. B. (1984). The Supreme Court's use of hypothetical questions at oral argument. Catholic University Law Review, 33, 555-591.
19. Pritchett, H. (1948). The Roosevelt court. New York: Macmillan.
20. Rohde, D., & Spaeth, H. (1976). Supreme Court decision making. San Francisco: Freeman.
21. Schubert, J., Peterson, S., Schubert, G., & Wasby, S. (1992). Observing Supreme Court oral argument: A biosocial approach. Politics and Life Sciences, 11 (1), 35-51.
22. Segal, J. (1997). Separation of powers games in the positive theory of Congress and courts. American Political Science Review, 91 (1), 215-244.
23. Segal, J., & Spaeth, H. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Spaeth, H. (1995). United States Supreme Court database [Electronic database]. 1953-1993 terms. Computer file. 6th ICPSR version.
25. Spriggs, J. F. II, & Wahlbeck, P. (1997). Amicus curiae and the role of information at the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 50 (2), 365-386.
26. Stern, R., Gressman, E., Shapiro, S., & Geller, K. (1993). Supreme Court practice. Washington, DC: Bureau of Government Affairs.
27. Tennessee v. Dunlop. 426 U.S. 312. (1975).
28. TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153. (1978).
29. Wahlbeck, P., Spriggs, J.F. II, & Maltzman, F. (1998). Marshalling the court: Bargaining and accommodation on the United States Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 42 (1), 294-315.
30. Wasby, S., D'Amato, A., & Metrailer, R. (1976). Desegregation from Brown to Alexander: An exploration of court strategies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
31. Wasby, S., Peterson, S., Schubert, J., & Schubert, G. (1992). The Supreme Court's use of per curium dispositions: The connection to oral argument. Northern Illinois University Law Review, 13 (1), 1-32.