The Information Dynamics of Vertical <i>Stare Decisis</i>

Hansford, Thomas G.; Spriggs, James F.; Stenger, Anthony A.

doi:10.1017/s0022381613000686

Cited by 24 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior research examining lower court compliance with Supreme Court precedent finds that the likelihood of future positive treatment of a precedent decreases as a precedent ages (Black and Spriggs 2013;Boyd and Spriggs 2009). Due to the potential for a non-linear effect of age, we include the natural logarithm of the precedent's age, ln(Age), to account for the impact of precedent age on the positive treatment of Miller and Atkins in the state high courts (Hansford, Spriggs, and Stenger 2013).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rigid rules and slippery standards: How the nature of U.S. Supreme Court precedents influences subsequent state court treatments

Montgomery

Fix

Kingsland

2021

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This research develops a new theoretical framework that explains how the U.S. Supreme Court's decision between a rigid rule and a flexible standard influences compliance with the decisions of state high courts over time. Methods: To assess the effects of doctrinal rules and standards on state court compliance, we apply our theoretical framework to an examination of state court responses to Miller v. California (1973) and Atkins v. Virginia (2002). Results: Our findings show that doctrinal characteristics of Supreme Court precedents influence state court treatments. Our central theoretical argument posits that applications and positive treatments of deterministic rules should decrease the likelihood of future positive treatments, whereas applications and positive treatments of indeterministic standards should increase the likelihood of future positive treatment. Our findings provide support for this expectation. Conclusion:This research demonstrates the importance of doctrinal characteristics in shaping state court compliance with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Our findings suggest that rigid, deterministic rules, and slippery indeterministic standards influence lower court compliance in unique ways."I'm frightened to death of writing a standard."-Justice Stephen Breyer, April 28, 2021. 1 The U.S. Supreme Court generally decides cases by issuing either a rule or a standard. Rules, such as the prohibition of the death penalty for rape 2 or individuals under the age of 18 3 , tend to apply to a very specific situation and offer little flexibility in their application to future cases. Alternatively, standards such 1

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rigid rules and slippery standards: How the nature of U.S. Supreme Court precedents influences subsequent state court treatments

Montgomery

Fix

Kingsland

2021

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Citations are useful in that they capture the applicability of a given Supreme Court opinion to other decisions over time. Fowler and Jeon (2008:17) note that citation behavior “provides information about which precedents serve important roles in the development of American law.” Hansford, Spriggs, and Stenger (2013:896) offer that “citations to precedent provide meaningful information about the meaning, scope, and authority of the cited cases.” The precise use of citations by the justices is somewhat heterogeneous. A citation may at times reflect whether a precedent is potentially applicable.…”

Section: The Varying Tendencies Of Supreme Court Justicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Sum of its Parts: How Supreme Court Justices Disparately Shape Attention to Their Opinions

Masood

Kassow

2020

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective While studies frequently examine the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court as an institution, little is known about how individual justices influence attention to their opinions. We investigate whether inherent differences in the majority opinions of individual justices result in certain justices being systematically more influential than their peers. Methods We advance a theory in which Supreme Court adoption of prior opinions is influenced by factors that relate to the identity of the authoring justice. To test these propositions, we explore the universe of the Supreme Court's signed majority opinions from 1986 to 2000. Results We find that intricate tendencies in opinion writing vary systematically by justice in key dimensions relating to their opinions. We also discover that differences among the justices exert an asymmetric impact on citation and adherence to precedent. Conclusion The findings offer important theoretical and normative implications toward a better understanding of the impact of Supreme Court justices on attentiveness to precedent and doctrinal development.

show abstract

“…When lower courts encounter new areas of the law, the Supreme Court adopts their rules after allowing them to percolate sufficiently (Klein 2002). More narrowly, lower courts' citation practices are informative to the Supreme Court about how doctrines have been interpreted (Hansford, Spriggs and Stenger 2010) and the language from lower courts' opinions finds its way to the opinions of the Supreme Court (Corley, Collins and Calvin 2011). Importantly, this is true about a group of decisions-most Supreme Court opinions cite at least one Courts of Appeals opinion other than that of the case they are reviewing (George and Berger 2005).…”

Section: Certiorari and Learning In The Federal Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning in the Judicial Hierarchy

Beim

2017

The Journal of Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I develop and empirically test a theory of judicial learning. In the model, the Supreme Court uses the Courts of Appeals as laboratories of law, learning from their decisions to determine how best to advance doctrine. The model shows how the Supreme Court leverages multiple Courts of Appeals decisions to identify which cases will be most informative to review, and what decision to make upon review. Because an unbiased judge only makes an extremist decision when there is an imbalance in the parties' arguments, the Supreme Court is able to draw inferences from cases it chooses not to review. Applying two of the model's new empirical predictions to data, I show the Supreme Court is more likely to review moderate than extremist decisions, and also show that when the Supreme Court is resolving conflicts between lower courts it is more likely to strike down doctrines it reviews. Together, the results depict the judicial hierarchy as an institution focused on doctrinal development, rather than doctrinal discipline.

show abstract

The Information Dynamics of Vertical Stare Decisis

Cited by 24 publications

References 22 publications

Rigid rules and slippery standards: How the nature of U.S. Supreme Court precedents influences subsequent state court treatments

Rigid rules and slippery standards: How the nature of U.S. Supreme Court precedents influences subsequent state court treatments

The Sum of its Parts: How Supreme Court Justices Disparately Shape Attention to Their Opinions

Learning in the Judicial Hierarchy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About