Erratum: The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Influence of Parties' Briefs (Political Research Quarterly (2008) 61 (468-478) DOI: 10.1177/1065912907306474);The supreme court and opinion content: The influence of parties' briefs

Political Research Quarterly

Volumn 61, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 468-478

  Corley, Pamela C ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Opinion content; Parties' briefs; Supreme Court

Indexed keywords

EID: 54349112053     PISSN: 10659129     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1065912908328057     Document Type: Erratum

References (38)

1. Bailey, Michael, Brian Kamoie, and Forrest Maltzman. 2005. Signals from the tenth justice: The political role of the solicitor general in Supreme Court decision-making. American Journal of Political Science 49: 72-85.
2. Benesh, Sara C., and Malia Reddick. 2002. Overruled: An event history analysis of lower court reaction to Supreme Court alteration of precedent. Journal of Politics 64 (2). 534-50.
3. Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1988. Organized interests and agenda setting on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 82: 1109-27.
4. Collins, Paul M., Jr. 2004. Friends of the Court: Examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in U.S. Supreme Court litigation. Law and Society Review 38: 807-32.
5. Corley, Pamela C., Robert M. Howard, and David C. Nixon. 2005. The Supreme Court and opinion content: The use of the Federalist Papers. Political Research Quarterly 58: 329-40.
6. Eagley, Alice H., and Shelly Chaiken. 1993. The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
7. Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1998. The choices justices make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
8. Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2000. Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science 44: 66-83.
9. Gates, John B., and Glenn A. Phelps. 1996. Intentionalism in constitutional opinions. Political Research Quarterly 49: 245-61.
10. Hansford, Thomas G., and James F. Spriggs II. 2006. The politics of precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11. Johnson, Timothy R., Paul J. Wahlbeck, and James F. Spriggs II 2006. The influence of oral arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 100: 99-113.
12. Kassop, Nancy. 1993. From arguments to Supreme Court opinions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. PS: Political Science and Politics 26: 53-58.
13. Kearney, Joseph D., and Thomas W. Merrill. 2000. The influence of amicus curiae briefs on the Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148: 743-830.
14. Knight, Jack, and Lee Epstein. 1996. Norm of stare decisis. American Journal of Political Science 40: 1018-35.
15. Lindquist, Stefanie A., and David E. Klein. 2006. The influence of jurisprudential considerations on Supreme Court decisionmaking: A study of conflict cases. Law & Society Review 40: 135-62.
16. Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The collegial game. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Manz, William H. 2002. Citations in Supreme Court opinions and briefs: A comparative study. Law Library Journal 94: 267-95.
18. McGuire, Kevin T. 1993. Lawyers and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Washington community and legal elites. American Journal of Political Science 37: 365-90.
19. 1995. Repeat players in the Supreme Court: The role of experienced lawyers in litigation success. Journal of Politics 57: 187-96.
20. 1998. Explaining executive success in the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly 51: 505-26.
21. Michel, Paul R. 1998. Effective appellate advocacy. Litigation 24: 19-23.
22. Neumann, Richard K., Jr. 2001. Legal reasoning and legal writing: Structure, strategy, and style. New York: Aspen Law & Business.
23. Palmer, Jan. 1982. An econometric analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's certiorari decisions. Public Choice 39: 387-98.
24. Phelps, Glenn, and John B. Gates. 1991. The myth of jurisprudence: Interpretative theory in the constitutional opinions of Justices Rehnquist and Brennan. Santa Clara Law Review 31: 567-96.
25. Posner, Richard A. 2000. An economic analysis of the use of citations in the law. American Law and Economics Review 2: 381-406.
26. Provine, Doris Marie. 1980. Case selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Rehnquist, William H. 2001. The Supreme Court. New York: Knopf.
28. Rohde, David, and Harold Spaeth. 1976. Supreme Court decision making. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
29. Rosen, Mark D. 2005. Modeling constitutional doctrine. St. Louis University Law Journal 49: 691-707.
30. Segal, Jeffrey A. 1986. Supreme Court justices as human decision makers: An individual-level analysis of the search and seizure cases. Journal of Politics 48: 938-55.
31. 1988. Amicus curiae briefs by the solicitor general during the Warren and Burger Courts: A research note. Western Political Quarterly 41: 135-44.
32. 1990. Supreme Court support for the solicitor general: The effect of presidential appointments. Western Political Quarterly 43: 137-52.
33. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert D. Cover. 1989. Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court justices. American Political Science Review 83: 557-65.
34. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35. Spaeth, Harold J. 2006. The original United States Supreme Court database, 1953-2005 terms. http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata. htm
36. Spriggs, James F., II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 1997. Amicus curiae and the role of information at the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly 50: 365-86.
37. United States v. Manuel Flores-Montano. 514 U.S. 149 (2004).
38. Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1997. The life of the law: Judicial politics and legal change. Journal of Politics 59: 778-802.