An Integrated Model of Privacy Decision Making in State Supreme Courts

Abstract

This study predicts state supreme court judges' votes on claims based on a right to privacy by estimating an integrated model that incorporates contextual, attitudinal, and legal variables, including U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Consistent with previous research on judicial decision making, the results suggest that judges' rulings are influenced by various extralegal factors, both individual and contextual. But politics do not entirely overwhelm the role of law. U.S. Supreme Court precedent—when it exists—substantially constrains judges' responses to privacy claims in the states.The extent to which court rulings are based on the facts of a case or on judges' own policy preferences poses a question that continues to dominate judicial research. A growing body of evidence, exemplified by Segal and Spaeth's (1993) work on the so-called attitudinal model, suggests that judges' ideologies and political values play an important role in court decisions. This conclusion dismisses the validity of the so-called legal model, which holds that case facts and precedents are-or should be-the primary determinants of how judges decide cases. According to the attitudinal model, legal factors may play a role in judicial decisions, but their impact is mediated to a large degree by the way judges perceive them. Even when reviewing the same case, liberal judges may focus on one set of facts whereas conservative judges focus on another. As a result, judges' decisions are colored by their ideological interpretations of a case.' I Authors' Note: We are grateful to Professor James Garand and several anonymous reviewers for their comments on earher versions of this article.

Capital Punishment Decision Making on the Supreme Court of Florida

“…This research has reinforced the integrated model's claim that state court justices' decisions are a product of both legal and extra-legal forces. The validity of the integrated model to explain Florida supreme court justices' decision making is by no means a groundbreaking revelation, yet it is (Flemming, Hollan, and Gluck-Mezey 1998;Hall and Brace 1992;Songer and Tabrizi 1999). In order to develop a more in-depth perspective, Emmert and Traut in 1994 and again in 1998 tested the integrated model on California Supreme Courtjustices.…”

“…4 particular state. In fact, none of the studies based on multiple states is able to capture the influence of state court precedent (Flemming, Hollan, and Gluck-Mezey 1998; Brace 1994 and1996; Songer and Tabrizi 1999).…”

Utilización de la Información Contable para la Toma de Decisiones Empresariales: Caso de Pequeñas Empresas

“…Entre estos se encuentran Simon (1955), Cyert y March (1963), Allison (1971), Cohen et al (1972), Mintzberg et al (1976), Liberman (1980), Hirokawa y Johnston (1989), Kleyle y Korvin (1989), Evans y Fisher (1992), Flemming et al (1998), Choo (2002), Thomson (2003), Arendt et al (2005), Kanner (2005), Yung (2006), Grandori (2010)…”

Right to Privacy in the Federal District Courts: A Research Note

“…Much of the literature utilizing the extralegal approach has focused on the U.S. Supreme Court (see, for example, Epstein and Knight 1998;Pritchett 1948;Rohde and Spaeth 1976;Schubert 1974;and Segal and Spaeth 1993). However, a growing body of literature also indicates the utility of extralegal VoL30 No.3 variables in understanding decision making by state supreme court justices (see, for example, Emmert and Traut 1994;Flemming et al 1998;and Hall and Brace 1996). Still other studies have focused on lower federal court judges (see, for example, Carp and Rowland 1983;Rowland and Carp 1996;Songer and Davis 1990;and Songer and Haire 1992).…”