The U.S. supreme court’s in forma pauperis docket: A descriptive analysis

Justice System Journal

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 47-60

  Watson, Wendy L ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845345628     PISSN: 0098261X     EISSN: 23277556     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2006.10767786     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. American Bar Association Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants (2004)- Gideon’s Broken Promise: America’s Continuing Quest for Equal Justice. Chicago: American Bar Association
2. Bradlow, J. M. (1988). “Procedural Due Process Rights of Pro Se Civil Litigants,” 55 University of Chicago Law Review 659
3. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (2005). “Statistical Recap of Supreme Court’s Workload During Last Three Terms,” 74 United States Law Week 3076
4. Caldeira, G. A. and J. R. Wright (1990). “The Discuss List: Agenda Building in the Supreme Court,” 24 Law and Society Review 807
5. Caldeira, G. A. and J. R. Wright (1988). “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court,” 82 American Political Science Review 1109
6. Hellman, A. D. (1985). “Case Selection in the Burger Court: A Preliminary Inquiry,” 60 Notre Dame Law Review 947
7. Lazarus, E. (1999). Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court. New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc
8. Mason, A. T. (1956). Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law. New York: Viking Press
9. O’Brien, D. M. (1993). Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics, 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton
10. Segal, J. A., and H. J. Spaeth (1993). The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press
11. Smith, K. H. (1999). “Justice for All?: The Supreme Court’s Denial of Pro Se Petitions for Certiorari,” 63 Albany Law Review 381
12. Tanenhaus, J., M. Schick, M. Muraskin, and D. Rosen (1963). “The Supreme Court’s Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory,” in G. A. Schubert (ed.), Judicial Decision-Making. New York: Free Press
13. Teger, S. H., and D. Kosinski (1980). “The Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration,” 45 Journal of Politics 834