2005
DOI: 10.1086/scer.13.3655301
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Signaling and Precedent in Federal District Court Opinions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Also, Taha (2004) finds that the caseload does affect measures of time allocation, and in particular the decision of a judge to allocate time to publish his rulings, while Buscaglia and Dakolias (1999) find that time allocated to administrative tasks affects the productivity of judges. And Morriss et al (2005) add to existing evidence that prospects of promotion affect the behaviour of judges. While it is impossible to see if Greek judges work inefficiently because non-pecuniary incentives encourage them to do so, the documented inefficiency of Greek courts at least does not oppose such an assertion.…”
Section: Supply and Demand For Judicial Servicesmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Also, Taha (2004) finds that the caseload does affect measures of time allocation, and in particular the decision of a judge to allocate time to publish his rulings, while Buscaglia and Dakolias (1999) find that time allocated to administrative tasks affects the productivity of judges. And Morriss et al (2005) add to existing evidence that prospects of promotion affect the behaviour of judges. While it is impossible to see if Greek judges work inefficiently because non-pecuniary incentives encourage them to do so, the documented inefficiency of Greek courts at least does not oppose such an assertion.…”
Section: Supply and Demand For Judicial Servicesmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…These findings build on the important contributions of Baum (2006Baum ( , 1997 who theorizes that various audiences influence judicial behavior. The results also underscore Morris, Heise and Sisk (2005), who note there is "a need for closer attention to the opportunity for 'advancement' within the judiciary as an influence on judicial decision-making" (96).…”
mentioning
confidence: 73%
“…For example, to understand the influence of promotion ambition among federal district court judges, a series of studies took advantage of district court judges' votes on the constitutionality of the federal Sentencing Commission (Morris, Heise and Sisk 2005;Sisk, Heise and Morris 1998;Cohen 1991). Immediately after its creation, the Commission was challenged in numerous district courts on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers.…”
Section: Judges and Their Promoting Audiencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This assumes that justices may vote untruthfullyi.e. contrary to their true preferences over a specific case outcomefor strategic reasons (see Ulmer 1978;Lax 2003;Schubert 1962;Epstein, Segal and Victor 2002), and engage in signaling their preferenceswith the necessary associated possibility of false signaling (Baird 2007;Dougherty and Reinganum 2006;Morriss, Heise and Sisk 2005;Baird and Jacobi 2009).…”
Section: Stevensmentioning
confidence: 99%