US supreme court agenda setting and the role of litigant status

Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 286-312

  Black, Ryan C ^a   Boyd, Christina L ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855970992     PISSN: 87566222     EISSN: 14657341     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jleo/ewq002     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Ai, Chunrong, and Edward C. Norton. 2003. "Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models," 80 Economic Letters 123-9.
2. Austin, Peter C., and Janet E. Hux. 2002. "A Brief Note on Overlapping Confidence Intervals," 36 Journal of Vascular Surgery 194-5.
3. Berry, William D., Jacqueline H. R. DeMeritt, and Justin Esarey. 2010. "Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?" 54 American Journal of Political Science 248-266.
4. Black, Ryan C., and Ryan J. Owens. 2009. "Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court: The Collision of Policy and Jurisprudence," 71 Journal of Politics 1062-75.
5. Brace, Paul, and Melinda Gann Hall. 2001. ""Haves" versus "Have Nots" in State Supreme Courts: Allocating Docket Space and Wins in Power Asymmetric Cases," 35 Law & Society Review 393-417.
6. Brambor, Thomas, William Roberts Clark, and Matt Golder. 2006. "Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analysis," 14 Political Analysis 63-82. (Pubitemid 43118795)
7. Bramen, Eileen, and Thomas E. Nelson. 2007. "Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes," 51 American Journal of Political Science 940-56.
8. Brandt, Patrick T., and Christina J. Schneider. 2007. "So the Reviewer Told You to Use a Selection Model? Selection Models and the Study of International Relations." Unpublished manuscript dated 4/23/07 and downloaded from http://www.utdallas.edu/pbrandt/pbrandt/Research files/cprobit 20070423.pdf on 6/29/09.
9. Brenner, Saul. 1979. "The New Certiorari Game," 41 Journal of Politics 649-55.
10. Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1988. "Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court," 82 American Political Science Review 1109-27.
11. - 1990. "The Discuss List: Agenda Building in the Supreme Court," 24 Law & Society Review 807-36.
12. - 1998. "Organized Interests Before the Supreme Court: Setting the Agenda." Unpublished Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Caldeira, Gregory A., John R. Wright, and Christopher J.W. Zorn. 1999. "Sophisticated Voting and Gate-Keeping in the Supreme Court," 15 Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 549-72.
13. Collins Jr., Paul M. 2004. 'Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation," 38 Law & Society Review 807-32.
14. - 2007. "Lobbyists Before the U.S. Supreme Court: Investigating the Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs," 60 Political Research Quarterly 55-70.
15. - 2008a. "Amici Curiae and Dissensus on the U.S. Supreme Court," 5 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 143-70.
16. - 2008b. Friends of the Court: Interest Groups and Judical Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Dotan, Yoav. 1999. "Do the 'Haves' Still Come Out Ahead? Resource Inequalities in Ideological Courts: The Case of the Israeli High Court of Justice," 33 Law & Society Review 1059-80. (Pubitemid 33216574)
18. Dunworth, Terence, and Joel Rogers. 1996. "Corporations in Court: Big Business Litigation in U.S. Federal Courts, 1971-1991," 21 Law & Social Inquiry 497-592. (Pubitemid 127027348)
19. Emmert, Craig F. 1991. "Litigants in State Supreme Court Judicial Review Cases: Participation and Success," 14 Justice System Journal 486-93.
20. Epp, Charles R. 1999. "The Two Motifs of Why the Haves Come Out Ahead and its Heirs," 33 Law & Society Review 1089-97.
21. Epstein, Lee and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2005. Advice and Consent: The Politics of Judicial Appointments. New York: Oxford University Press.
22. Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Harold J. Spaeth. 2007a. "Digital Archive of the Papers of Harry A. Blackmun." http://epstein.law.northwestern.edu/research/BlackmunArchive.html (accessed January 23, 2008).
23. Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, Harold J. Spaeth, and Thomas G. Walker. 2007b. The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions, and Developments. 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
24. Epstein, Lee, René Lindsädt, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Chad Westerland. 2006. "The Changing Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees," 68 Journal of Politics 296-307. (Pubitemid 43667568)
25. Farole Jr., Donald J. 1999. "Reexamining Litigant Success in State Supreme Courts," 33 Law & Society Review 1043-58.
26. Flemming, Roy B., and Glen S. Krutz. 2002a. "Repeat Litigators and Agenda Setting on the Supreme Court of Canada," 35 Canadian Journal of Political Science 811-33.
27. - 2002b. "Selecting Appeals for Judicial Review in Canada: A Replication and Multivariate Test of American Hypotheses," 64 Journal of Politics 232-48.
28. Freedman, David A., and Jasjeet S. Sekhon. Forthcoming. "Endogeneity in Probit Response Models." Political Analysis. Manuscript draft dated 6/8/2008 and downloaded from http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/census/heckprob.pdf on 6/29/09.
29. Galanter, Marc. 1974. "Why the 'Haves' Come out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal Changes," 9(1) Law & Society Review 95-160.
30. Grossman, Joel B., Herbert M. Kritzer, and Stewart Macaulay. 1999. "Do the "Haves" Still Come out Ahead?" 33 Law & Society Review 803-10.
31. Haynie, Stacia L. 1994. "Resource Inequalities and Litigation Outcomes in the Philippine Supreme Court," 56 Journal of Politics 752-72.
32. - 2003. Judging in Black and White: Decision Making in the South African Appellate Division, 1950-1990. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
33. Jacobson, Gary C. 2001. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 5th ed. New York: Longman.
34. Johnson, Timothy R. 2004. Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
35. Kam, Cindy D., and Robert J. Franzese Jr. 2007. Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
36. King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and JasonWittenberg. 2000. "Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation," 44 American Journal of Political Science 347-61.
37. Kritzer, Herbert M. 2003. "The Government Gorilla: Why Does Government Come Out Ahead in Appellate Courts?" in H.M. Kritzer and S.S. Silbey, eds., In Litigation: Do the "Haves" Still Come Out Ahead? Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 342-370.
38. Kunda, Ziva. 1990. "The Case for Motivated Reasoning," 108 Psychological Bulletin 335-58.
39. Lane, Cristina. 2003. "Pay Up or Shut Up: The Supreme Court's Prospective Denial of In Forma Pauperis Petitions," 98 Northwestern University Law Review 335-66.
40. Lazarus, Edward. 2005. Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court. Reissue edition ed. New York: Penguin Books.
41. Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
42. Maltzman, Forrest, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 1996. "May it Please the Chief? Opinion Assignments in the Rehnquist Court," 40 American Journal of Political Science 421-33.
43. Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999," 10 Political Analysis 134-53.
44. Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. Fredricksburg, VA: Yale University Press.
45. McAtee, Andrea, and Kevin T. McGuire. 2007. "Lawyers, Justices, and Issue Salience: When and How Do Legal Arguments Affect the U.S. Supreme Court?" 41 Law & Society Review 259-78.
46. McCormick, Peter. 1993. "Party Capability Theory and Appellate Success in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1949-1992," 26 Canadian Journal of Political Science 523-40.
47. McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. "Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success," 57 Journal of Politics 187-96.
48. - 1998. "Explaining Executive Success in the U.S. Supreme Court," 51 Political Research Quarterly 505-26.
49. McGuire, Kevin T., and Gregory A. Caldeira. 1993. "Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court," 87 American Political Science Review 717-26.
50. Rehnquist, William H. 2001. The Supreme Court. Revised and updated ed. New York: Vintage Books.
51. Rowland, C.K., and Bridget Jeffery Todd. 1991. "Where You Stand Depends on Who Sits: Platform Promises and Judicial Gatekeeping in the Federal District Courts," 53 Journal of Politics 175-85.
52. Sartori, Anne E. 2003. "An Estimator for Some Binary-Outcome Selection Models Without Exclusion Restrictions," 11 Political Analysis 111-38.
53. Schoen, Ryan, and Paul J.Wahlbeck. 2006. "The Discuss List and Agenda-Setting on the Supreme Court." Unpublished manuscript presented at the 2006 Annual Meetings of the Southern Political Science Association in Atlanta, GA.
54. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
55. - 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
56. Sheehan, Reginald S., William Mishler, and Donald R. Songer. 1992. "Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court," 86 American Political Science Review 464-71.
57. Smith, Kevin H. 1999. "Justice For All? The Supreme Courts Denial of Pro Se Petitions for Certiorari," 63 Albany Law Review 381-425.
58. - 2001. "Certiorari and the Supreme Court Agenda: An Empirical Analysis," 54 Oklahoma Law Review 727-73.
59. Smyth, Russell. 2000. "The 'Haves' and the 'Have Nots': An Empirical Study of the Rational Actor Party Capability Hypothesis in the High Court 1948-99," 35 Australian Journal of Political Science 255-74.
60. Solowiej, Lisa A., and Paul M. Collins Jr. 2009. "Counteractive Lobbying in the U.S. Supreme Court," 37 American Politics Research 670-99.
61. Songer, Donald R. 1979. "Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari," 41 Journal of Politics 1185-94.
62. Songer, Donald R., Ashlyn Kuersten, and Erin Kaheny. 2000. "Why the Haves Don't Always Come Out Ahead: Repeat Players Meet Amici Curiae for the Disadvantaged," 53 Political Research Quarterly 537-56.
63. Songer, Donald R., and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1992. "Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals," 36 American Journal of Political Science 235-58.
64. Songer, Donald R., Reginald S. Sheehan, and 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 Review 811-32.
65. Spaeth, Harold J. 2001. The Burger Court Judicial Database: (1969-1985 Terms). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
66. Spriggs II, James F., and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 1997. "Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court," 50 Political Research Quarterly 365-86. (Pubitemid 127348097)
67. Stern, Robert L., Eugene Gressman, Stephen M. Shapiro, and Kenneth S. Geller. 2002. Supreme Court Practice. 8th ed. Washington, DC: The Bureau of National Affairs.
68. Tanenhaus, Joseph, Marvin Schick, Matthew Muraskin, and David Rosen. 1963. "The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory," in G.A. Schubert, ed., Judicial Decision-Making. New York: Free Press, 111-132.
69. Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1978. "Selecting Cases for Supreme Court Review: An Underdog Model," 72 American Political Science Review 902-10.
70. Ulmer, S. Sidney, William Hintz, and Louise Kirklosky. 1972. "The Decision to Grant or Deny Certiorari: Further Considerations of Cue Theory," 6 Law & Society Review 637-44.
71. Wahlbeck, Paul J., James F. Spriggs, II, and Forrest Maltzman. 1999. "The Politics of Dissents and Concurrences on the U.S. Supreme Court." 27 American Politics Research 488-514.
72. Ward, Artemus, and David L. Weiden. 2006. Sorcerers' Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court. New York: New York University Press.
73. Watson, Wendy. 2006. "The U.S. Supreme Court's In Forma Pauperis Docket: A Descriptive Analysis," 27 Justice System Journal 47-60. (Pubitemid 44874806)
74. Wheeler, Stanton, Bliss Cartwright, Robert A. Kagan, and Lawrence M. Friedman. 1987. "Do the "Haves" Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970," 21 Law & Society Review 403-46.
75. Woodward, Bob, and Scott Armstrong. 1979. The Brethern: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Simon & Schuster.