Measuring the Latent Quality of Precedent: Scoring Vertices in a Network

Patty, John W.; Penn, Elizabeth Maggie; Schnakenberg, Keith E.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35239-3_12

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Measuring the legal influence of precedent using judicial citation data requires considering both the content and context of judicial opinions. Many scholars, such as Fowler et al (); Fowler and Jeon (): and Patty, Penn, and Schnakenberg () consider citation context, in terms of a precedent's networked position, at the Supreme Court level. These scholars succeed in their efforts to measure which precedents are most relevant to current disputes at the Court at a given point in time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A rich literature across several disciplines engages legal precedent theoretically and empirically (Black and Spriggs ; Bueno De Mesquita and Stephenson ; Clark and Lauderdale ; Fowler et al ; Fowler and Jeon ; Hansford and Spriggs ; Landes and Posner ; Lax ; Lax and Cameron ; Lax and Landa ; Patty, Penn, and Schnakenberg ; Spriggs and Hansford ). Legal scholars define precedent pithily as: “something done in the past that is appealed to as a reason for doing the same thing again” (Landes and Posner , 250).…”

Section: What Is Precedent?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some citations to precedent are incidental, others are negative, and some are deferential. Fowler et al (); Fowler and Jeon (), and Patty, Penn, and Schnakenberg () focus on a citation's networked position and analyze all types of citations, positive, negative, and neutral, together. Alternatively, Hansford and Spriggs () consider the nature of citations when measuring precedent, at the Supreme Court level exclusively.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measuring Precedent in a Judicial Hierarchy

Hitt¹

2016

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identifying the U.S. Supreme Court's most influential precedents is integral to understanding its impact on society. To make these identifications, scholars often analyze the network of citations in Supreme Court opinions. I contend that the broader jurisprudential significance of precedent can be better captured by considering how frequently a precedent is followed across the federal judicial hierarchy. In support of this contention, I present an analysis of original data on the treatment of every Court precedent 1946–2010 in all three levels of the federal judicial hierarchy. I show that a class of complex and ambiguous precedents are followed significantly less at all levels of the hierarchy. Yet these same fractious precedents exhibit high citation rates in Supreme Court opinions. The results show that different methodological choices capture strikingly different theoretical concepts, ones that are easily conflated in the study of legal precedent.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Is Precedent?mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring Precedent in a Judicial Hierarchy

Hitt¹

2016

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This particular network was studied inFowler et al (2007). We have analyzed it using our scoring method inPatty, Penn, and Schnakenberg (2013).Keith E. Schnakenberg and Elizabeth Maggie Penn…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scoring from Contests

Schnakenberg

Penn²

2014

Polit. anal.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a new model for scoring alternatives from “contest” outcomes. The model is a generalization of the method of paired comparison to accommodate comparisons between arbitrarily sized sets of alternatives in which outcomes are any division of a fixed prize. Our approach is also applicable to contests between varying quantities of alternatives. We prove that under a reasonable condition on the comparability of alternatives, there exists a unique collection of scores that produces accurate estimates of the overall performance of each alternative and satisfies a well-known axiom regarding choice probabilities. We apply the method to several problems in which varying choice sets and continuous outcomes may create problems for standard scoring methods. These problems include measuring centrality in network data and the scoring of political candidates via a “feeling thermometer.” In the latter case, we also use the method to uncover and solve a potential difficulty with common methods of rescaling thermometer data to account for issues of interpersonal comparability.

show abstract

La comunicación de los precedentes constitucionales y su difusión en las jerarquías judiciales: un análisis del caso mexicano

Morales Ramírez

2024

derest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Los estudios sobre transmisión de precedentes judiciales desarrollados en los Estados Unidos de América proponen que la estrategia de comunicación empleada por las cortes emisoras tiene un impacto en su aplicación en los órganos jurisdiccionales de inferior jerarquía. Este artículo retoma las aportaciones de la literatura estadounidense y presenta los hallazgos de una investigación empírica conducida en sistema jurídico mexicano, con el propósito de analizar los mecanismos formales e informales empleados por la Suprema Corte para comunicar sus precedentes entre las instancias inferiores del Poder Judicial de la Federación y los poderes judiciales estatales.

show abstract

Measuring the Latent Quality of Precedent: Scoring Vertices in a Network

Cited by 3 publications

References 13 publications

Measuring Precedent in a Judicial Hierarchy

Measuring Precedent in a Judicial Hierarchy

Scoring from Contests

La comunicación de los precedentes constitucionales y su difusión en las jerarquías judiciales: un análisis del caso mexicano

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About