Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:21:12.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2020

Michael P. Fix  and
Benjamin J. Kassow
Michael P. Fix
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
Benjamin J. Kassow
Affiliation:
University of North Dakota
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
US Supreme Court Doctrine in the State High Courts , pp. 169 - 178
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, Matthew D. 2001. “State Sovereignty and the Anti-commandeering Cases.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 574(1): 158–172.Google Scholar
Almand, Bond. 1943. “The Supreme Court of Georgia: An Account of Its Delayed Birth.” Georgia Bar Journal 6: 95.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 1998. “When Politics and Models Collide: Estimating Models of Multiparty Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 42(1): 56–96.Google Scholar
Banks, Christopher P. 1991. “The Supreme Court and Precedent: An Analysis of Natural Courts and Reversal Trends.” Judicature 75(5): 262–268.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1978. “Lower-Court Response to Supreme Court Decisions: Reconsidering a Negative Picture.” Justice System Journal 3(3): 208–219.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1997. The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2009. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beatty, Jerry K. 1971. “State Court Evasion of United States Supreme Court Mandates during the Last Decade of the Warren Court.” Valparaiso University Law Review 6(3): 260–285.Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C, and Martinek, Wendy L. 2002. “State Supreme Court Decision Making in Confession Cases.” Justice System Journal 23(1): 109–133.Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C, and Reddick, Malia. 2002. “Overruled: An Event History Analysis of Lower Court Reaction to Supreme Court Alteration of Precedent.” Journal of Politics 64(2): 534–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D, Ringquist, Evan J, Fording, Richard C, and Hanson, Russell L. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960–93.” American Journal of Political Science 23(1): 327–348.Google Scholar
Berry, William D, Fording, Richard C, Ringquist, Evan J, Hanson, Russell L, and Klamer, Carl E. 2010. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the U.S. States: A Re-appraisal.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 10(2): 117–135.Google Scholar
Bierce, Ambrose. [1911] 2015. The Devil’s Dictionary. Project Gutenberg eBook. www.gutenberg.org/files/972/972-h/972-h.htmGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C, and Spriggs, James F. 2013. “The Citation and Depreciation of US Supreme Court Precedent.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 10(2): 325–358.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C, Owens, Ryan J, Wedeking, Justin, and Wohlfarth, Patrick C. 2016. US Supreme Court Opinions and Their Audiences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blume, John H, Johnson, Sheri Lynn, Marcus, Paul, and Paavola, Emily. 2014. “A Tale of Two (and Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability and Capital Punishment Twelve Years after the Supreme Court’s Creation of a Categorical Bar.” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 23(2): 393–414.Google Scholar
Bonneau, Chris W, and Cann, Damon M. 2015. Voters’ Verdicts: Citizens, Campaigns, and Institutions in State Supreme Court Elections. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Bonneau, Chris W, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 2003. “Predicting Challengers in State Supreme Court Elections: Context and the Politics of Institutional Design.” Political Research Quarterly 56(3): 337–349.Google Scholar
Bonneau, Chris W, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 2009. In Defense of Judicial Elections. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boyd, Christina L, and Spriggs, James F. 2009. “An Examination of Strategic Anticipation of Appellate Court Preferences by Federal District Court Judges.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29(1): 37–82.Google Scholar
Brace, Paul, and Boyea, Brent D. 2008. “State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty, and the Practice of Electing Judges.” American Journal of Political Science 52(2): 360–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 1990. “Neo-institutionalism and Dissent in State Supreme Courts.” Journal of Politics 52(1): 54–70.Google Scholar
Brace, Paul, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 1993. “Integrated Models of Judicial Dissent.” Journal of Politics 55(4): 914–935.Google Scholar
Brace, Paul, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 1995. “Studying Courts Comparatively: The View from the American States.” Political Research Quarterly 48(1): 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul R, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 1997. “The Interplay of Preferences, Case Facts, Context, and Rules in the Politics of Judicial Choice.” Journal of Politics 59(4): 1206–1231.Google Scholar
Brace, Paul, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 2001. “‘Haves’ versus ‘Have Nots’ in State Supreme Courts: Allocating Docket Space and Wins in Power Asymmetric Cases.” Law & Society Review 35(2): 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, Langer, Laura, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 2000. “Measuring the Preferences of State Supreme Court Judges.” Journal of Politics 59(4): 387–413.Google Scholar
Braman, Eileen. 2009. Law, Politics, and Perception: How Policy Preferences Influence Legal Reasoning. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Braman, Eileen. 2012. “Embracing Complexity in Law Courts: A Psychological Approach.” Law & Courts Newsletter 22(3): 18–23.Google Scholar
Jr, Brennan, William, J. 1977. “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights.” Harvard Law Review 90(3): 489–504.Google Scholar
Brunner, Heinrich. 1907. “The Sources of English Law.” In Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Vol. 2, ed. Committee of the Association of American Law Schools, 7–52. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan, and Stephenson, Matthew. 2002. “Informative Precedent and Intrajudicial Communication.” American Political Science Review 96(4): 755–766.Google Scholar
Caldarone, Richard P, Canes-Wrone, Brandice, and Clark, Tom S. 2009. “Partisan Labels and Democratic Accountability: An Analysis of State Supreme Court Abortion Decisions.” Journal of Politics 71(2): 560–573.Google Scholar
Caminker, Evan H. 1994. “Why Must Inferior Courts Obey Superior Court Precedents?” Stanford Law Review 46(4): 817–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Clark, Tom S, and Kelly, Jason P. 2014. “Judicial Selection and Death Penalty Decisions.” American Political Science Review 108(1): 23–39.Google Scholar
Canon, Bradley C. 1973. “Reactions of State Supreme Courts to a US Supreme Court Civil Liberties Decision.” Law & Society Review 8(1): 109–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canon, Bradley C, and Johnson, Charles A. 1999. Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Canon, Bradley C, and Kolson, Kenneth. 1970. “Rural Compliance with Gault: Kentucky, a Case Study.” Journal of Family Law 10(3): 300–326.Google Scholar
Choper, Jesse H. 2002. “The Endorsement Test: Its Status and Desirability.” Journal of Law & Politics 18(2): 499–536.Google Scholar
Collins, Todd A, and Cooper, Christopher A. 2012. “Case Salience and Media Coverage of Supreme Court Decisions: Toward a New Measure.” Political Research Quarterly 65(2): 396–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Todd A, and Cooper, Christopher A. 2016. “The Case Salience Index, Public Opinion, and Decision Making on the US Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal 37(3): 232–245.Google Scholar
Comparato, Scott A, and McClurg, Scott D. 2007. “A Neo-institutional Explanation of State Supreme Court Responses in Search and Seizure Cases.” American Politics Research 35(5): 726–754.Google Scholar
Corley, Pamela C. 2009. “Uncertain Precedent: Circuit Court Responses to Supreme Court Plurality Opinions.” American Politics Research 37(1): 30–49.Google Scholar
Corwin, Edward S. 1949. “The Supreme Court as National School Board.” Law & Contemporary Problems 14(1): 3–22.Google Scholar
Curry, Todd A, and Fix, Michael P. 2019. “May It Please the Twitterverse: The Use of Twitter by State High Court Judges.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 16(4): 379–393.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. “Decision-making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker.” Journal of Public Law 6(2): 279–297.Google Scholar
Dear, Jake, and Jessen, Edward W.. 2007. “‘Followed Rates’ and Leading State Cases, 1940–2005.” UC Davis Law Review 41: 683–711.Google Scholar
Dow, Jay K, and Endersby, James W. 2004. “Multinomial Probit and Multinomial Logit: A Comparison of Choice Models for Voting Research.” Electoral Studies 23(1): 107–122.Google Scholar
Drakeman, Donald L. 2004. “Reynolds v. United States: The Historical Construction of Constitutional Reality.” Constitutional Commentary 21(3): 697–726.Google Scholar
Lee, Epstein, and Segal, Jeffrey A. 2000. “Measuring Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 66–83.Google Scholar
Ewing, James. 1805. A Treatise on the Office and Duty of a Justice of the Peace, Sheriff, Coroner, Constable, and of Executors, Administrators, and Guardians: In which Is Particularly Laid Down, the Rules for Conducting an Action in the Court for the Trial of Small Causes. Printed, for the author, by James Oram.Google Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm M. 1992. “Hollow Hopes, Flypaper, and Metaphors.” Law & Social Inquiry 17(4): 745–760.Google Scholar
Feldman, Noah. 2002. “The Intellectual Origins of the Establishment Clause.” New York University Law Review 77(2): 346–428.Google Scholar
Fix, Michael P. 2014. “Does Deference Depend on Distinction? Issue Salience and Judicial Decision-Making in Administrative Law Cases.” Justice System Journal 35(2): 122–138.Google Scholar
Fix, Michael P. 2016a. “The Evolution of Obscenity Standards in the Common Law World.” Journal of Comparative Law 11(2): 75–99.Google Scholar
Fix, Michael P. 2016b. “A Universal Standard for Obscenity? The Importance of Context and Other Considerations.” Justice System Journal 37(1): 72–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fix, Michael P. 2018. “Understanding the Mechanisms Driving the Evolution of Obscenity Law in Five Common Law Countries.” Journal of Comparative Law 13(2): 147–163.Google Scholar
Fix, Michael P, Kingsland, Justin T, and Montgomery, Matthew D. 2017. “The Complexities of State Court Compliance with US Supreme Court Precedent.” Justice System Journal 38(2): 149–163.Google Scholar
Fountaine, Cynthia L. 1998. “Article III and the Adequate and Independent State Grounds Doctrine.” American University Law Review 48(5): 1053–1100.Google Scholar
Frank, Jerome. 1945. “The Cult of the Robe.” Saturday Review of Literature 28: 12–13.Google Scholar
Frost, Amanda. 2015. “Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent on the Meaning of Federal Law.” Vanderbilt Law Review 68(1): 53–103.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, Michael J. 2005. “Super Precedent.” Minnesota Law Review 90(5): 1204–1231.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, Michael J. 2011. The Power of Precedent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gey, Steven G. 2006. “Reconciling the Supreme Court’s Four Establishment Clauses.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 8(4): 725–800.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L, and Nelson, Michael J. 2017. “Reconsidering Positivity Theory: What Roles Do Politicization, Ideological Disagreement, and Legal Realism Play in Shaping US Supreme Court Legitimacy?” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 14(3): 592–617.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard, and Clayton, Cornell W. 1999. “Beyond Judicial Attitudes: Institutional Approaches to Supreme Court Decision-Making.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, ed. Cornell W Clayton and Howard Gillman, 1–12. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goelzhauser, Greg. 2016. Choosing State Supreme Court Justices: Merit Selection and the Consequences of Institutional Reform. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Goodhart, Arthur L. 1930. “Case Law in England and America.” Cornell Law Quarterly 15(2): 173–193.Google Scholar
Hall, Matthew EK. 2010. The Nature of Supreme Court Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Matthew EK. 2014. “The Semiconstrained Court: Public Opinion, the Separation of Powers, and the US Supreme Court’s Fear of Nonimplementation.” American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 352–366.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann. 1987. “Constituent Influence in State Supreme Courts: Conceptual Notes and a Case Study.” Journal of Politics 49(4): 1117–1124.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann. 1995. “Justices as Representatives: Elections and Judicial Politics in the American States.” American Politics Quarterly 23(4): 485–503.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann. 2001. “State Supreme Courts in American Democracy: Probing the Myths of Judicial Reform.” American Political Science Review 95(2): 315–330.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann. 2014. “Representation in State Supreme Courts: Evidence from the Terminal Term.” Political Research Quarterly 67(2): 335–346.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann, and Brace, Paul. 1989. “Order in the Courts: A Neo-institutional Approach to Judicial Consensus.” Western Political Quarterly 42(3): 391–407.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann, and Brace, Paul. 1992. “Toward an Integrated Model of Judicial Voting Behavior.” American Politics Quarterly 20(2): 147–168.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann, and Brace, Paul. 1994. “The Vicissitudes of Death by Decree: Forces Influencing Capital Punishment Decision Making in State Supreme Courts.” Social Science Quarterly 75(1): 136–155.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann, and Brace, Paul. 1996. “Justices’ Responses to Case Facts: An Interactive Model.” American Politics Quarterly 24(2): 237–261.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Charles V. 1973. The Bench and the Ballot: Southern Federal Judges and Black Voters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G, and Spriggs, James F. 2006. The Politics of Precedent on the US Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G, Spriggs, James F, and Stenger, Anthony A. 2013. “The Information Dynamics of Vertical Stare Decisis.” Journal of Politics 75(4): 894–906.Google Scholar
Healy, Thomas. 2001. “Stare Decisis as a Constitutional Requirement.” West Virginia Law Review 104(1): 43–121.Google Scholar
Hildreth, Richard. 1854. Despotism in America: An Inquiry into the Nature, Results, and Legal Basis of the Slave-Holding System. Boston, MA: J. P. Jewett.Google Scholar
Hinkle, Rachael K. 2015. “Legal Constraint in the US Courts of Appeals.” Journal of Politics 77(3): 721–735.Google Scholar
Hinkle, Rachael K, and Nelson, Michael J. 2016. “The Transmission of Legal Precedent among State Supreme Courts in the Twenty-First Century.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 16(4): 391–410.Google Scholar
Hitt, Matthew P. 2016. “Measuring Precedent in a Judicial Hierarchy.” Law & Society Review 50(1): 57–81.Google Scholar
Hitt, Matthew P. 2019. Inconsistency and Indecision in the United States Supreme Court. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Valerie. 2005. “Competing Constraints: State Court Responses to Supreme Court Decisions and Legislation on Wages and Hours.” Political Research Quarterly 58(2): 317–328.Google Scholar
Holdsworth, William Searle. 1907. “The Year Books.” In Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Vol. 2, ed. Committee of the Association of American Law Schools, 96–122. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Donald L. 1977. Courts and Social Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, David A. 2020 “Does Local Journalism Stimulate Voter Participation in State Supreme Court Elections?” Journal of Law and Courts 8(1): 95–126.Google Scholar
Jacobi, Tonja, and Tiller, Emerson H. 2007. “Legal Doctrine and Political Control.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 23(2): 326–345.Google Scholar
Johnson, Charles A. 1979. “Lower Court Reactions to Supreme Court Decisions: A Quantitative Examination.” American Journal of Political Science 23(4): 792–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Charles A. 1987. “Law, Politics, and Judicial Decision Making: Lower Federal Court Uses of Supreme Court Decisions.” Law & Society Review 21(2): 325–340.Google Scholar
Joyce, Craig. 1985. “The Rise of the Supreme Court Reporter: An Institutional Perspective on Marshall Court Ascendancy.” Michigan Law Review 83(5): 1291–1391.Google Scholar
Kassow, Benjamin, Songer, Donald R, and Fix, Michael P. 2012. “The Influence of Precedent on State Supreme Courts.” Political Research Quarterly 65(2): 372–384.Google Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan P. 2018. “How Courts Structure State-Level Representation.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 18(1): 27–60.Google Scholar
Kempin, Frederick G. 1959. “Precedent and Stare Decisis: The Critical Years, 1800 to 1850.” American Journal of Legal History 3(1): 28–54.Google Scholar
Klein, David E. 2002. Making Law in the United States Courts of Appeals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kropko, Jonathan. 2007. “Choosing between Multinomial Logit and Multinomial Probit Models for Analysis of Unordered Choice Data.” PhD diss. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Kurland, Philip B. 1979. “The Irrelevance of the Constitution: The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court.” Villanova Law Review 24(1): 3–27.Google Scholar
Kurland, Philip B. 1985. “The Origins of the Religion Clauses of the Constitution.” William and Mary Law Review 27(5): 839–862.Google Scholar
Landes, William M, and Posner, Richard A. 1976. “Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Law and Economics 19(2): 249–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, Laura. 2002. Judicial Review in State Supreme Courts: A Comparative Study. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Leach, W Barton. 1967. “Revisionism in the House of Lords: The Bastion of Rigid Stare Decisis Falls.” Harvard Law Review 80(4): 797–803.Google Scholar
Lee, Thomas R. 1999. “Stare Decisis in Historical Perspective: From the Founding Era to the Rehnquist Court.” Vanderbilt Law Review 52(3): 645–735.Google Scholar
Leonard, Meghan E. 2016. “State Legislatures, State High Courts, and Judicial Independence: An Examination of Court-Curbing Legislation in the States.” Justice System Journal 37(1): 53–62.Google Scholar
Levy, Leonard W. 2017. The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, James M, and Vild, Michael L. 1989. “Controversial Twist of Lemon: The Endorsement Test as the New Establishment Clause Standard.” Notre Dame Law Review 65(4): 671–698.Google Scholar
Lewis, T Ellis. 1930a. “The History of Judicial Precedent I.” Law Quarterly Review 46(2): 207–224.Google Scholar
Lewis, T Ellis. 1930b. “The History of Judicial Precedent II.” Law Quarterly Review 46(3): 341–360.Google Scholar
Lewis, T Ellis. 1931. “The History of Judicial Precedent III.” Law Quarterly Review 47(3): 411–427.Google Scholar
Lewis, T Ellis. 1932. “The History of Judicial Precedent IV.” Law Quarterly Review 48(2): 230–246.Google Scholar
Maitland, Frederic William. 1907. “Materials for the History of English Law.” In Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Vol. 2, ed. Committee of the Association of American Law Schools, 53–96. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Mangels, Aurelie T. 2017. “Should Individuals with Severe Mental Illness Continue to be Eligible for the Death Penalty?” Criminal Justice 32(3): 9–14.Google Scholar
Manwaring, David R. 1968. “The Impact of Mapp v. Ohio.” In The Supreme Court as a Policy Maker, ed. David Everson. Carbondale, IL: Public Affairs Bureau of Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
Martin, Francois Xavier. 1792. A Collection of Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North Carolina. New Bern: Editor’s Press.Google Scholar
Masood, Ali S, and Lineberger, Monica E. in press. “United Kingdom, United Courts? Hierarchical Interactions and Attention to Precedent in the British Judiciary.” Political Research Quarterly: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919853368.Google Scholar
Masood, Ali S, Kassow, Benjamin J, and Songer, Donald R. 2017. “Supreme Court Precedent in a Judicial Hierarchy.” American Politics Research 45(3): 403–434.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael W. 1992. “Reform Litigation on Trial.” Law & Social Inquiry 17(4): 715–743.Google Scholar
McConnell, Michael W. 1992. “Religious Participation in Public Programs – Religious Freedom at a Crossroads.” University of Chicago Law Review 59(1): 115–194.Google Scholar
McConnell, Michael W. 1997. “Stuck with a Lemon.” ABA Journal 83(2): 46–47.Google Scholar
McKenzie, Mark Jonathan, and Unger, Michael A. 2011. “‘New Style’ Campaigning, Citizen Knowledge, and Sources of Legitimacy for State Courts: A Case Study in Texas.” Politics & Policy 39(5): 813–834.Google Scholar
Merryman, John Henry. 1953. “The Authority of Authority: What the California Supreme Court Cited in 1950.” Stanford Law Review 6(4): 613–673.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. 1959. “Lower Court Checks on Supreme Court Power.” American Political Science Review 53(4): 1017–1031.Google Scholar
Nelson, Caleb. 2001. “Stare Decisis and Demonstrably Erroneous Precedents.” Virginia Law Review 87(1): 1–84.Google Scholar
Jr, Pacelle, Richard, L, and Baum, Lawrence. 1992. “Supreme Court Authority in the Judiciary: A Study of Remands.” American Politics Quarterly 20(2): 169–191.Google Scholar
Parker, Tom. 2006. “Alabama Justices Surrender to Judicial Activism.” Birmingham News, January 1.Google Scholar
Paulsen, Michael A. 1986. “Religion, Equality, and the Constitution: An Equal Protection Approach to Establishment Clause Adjudication.” Notre Dame Law Review 61(3): 311–371.Google Scholar
Paulsen, Michael Stokes. 1992. “Lemon Is Dead.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 43(3): 795–864.Google Scholar
Paulsen, Michael Stokes. 2007. “Does the Supreme Court’s Current Doctrine of Stare Decisis Require Adherence to the Supreme Court’s Current Doctrine of Stare Decisis.” North Carolina Law Review 86(5): 1165–1212.Google Scholar
Peltason, Jack Walter. 1971. Fifty-Eight Lonely Men: Southern Federal Judges and School Desegregation. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Plouffe, William C., Jr. 2000. “‘A Federal Court Holds the Second Amendment Is an Fundamental Right: Jeffersonian Utopia or Apocalypse Now.” University of Memphis Law Review 30(1): 55–130.Google Scholar
Plucknett, Theodore Frank Thomas. 1929. A Concise History of the Common Law. Rochester, NY: Lawyers’ Cooperative Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Plucknett, Theodore Frank Thomas. 1932. “The Place of the Legal Professions in the History of English Law.” Law Quarterly Review 48(3): 328–340.Google Scholar
Pongrace, Paul Earl III. 1993. “Justice Kennedy and the Establishment Clause: The Supreme Court Tries the Coercion Test.” University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy 6(2): 217–230.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2008. “How Judges Think.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Price, Marilyn, and Norris, Donna M. 2008. “National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act: Implications for Persons with Mental Illness.” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 36(1): 123–130.Google Scholar
Reinsch, Paul Samuel. 1907. “The English Common Law in the Early American Colonies.” In Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Vol. 1, ed. Committee of the Association of American Law Schools, 367–415. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Richardson, Henry Gerald. 1922. “Year Books and Plea Rolls as Sources of Historical Information.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5: 28–70.Google Scholar
Robinson, Rob. 2013. “Punctuated Equilibrium and the Supreme Court.” Policy Studies Journal 41(4): 654–681.Google Scholar
Romano, Michael K, and Curry, Todd A. 2019. Creating the Law: State Supreme Court Opinions and the Effect of Audiences. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Romans, Neil T. 1974. “The Role of State Supreme Courts in Judicial Policy Making: Escobedo, Miranda and the Use of Judicial Impact Analysis.” Western Political Quarterly 27(1): 38–59.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald N. 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ruben, Eric M., and Cornell, Saul. 2015. “Firearm Regionalism and Public Carry: Placing Southern Antebellum Case Law in Context.” Yale Law Journal Forum 125: 121–135.Google Scholar
Schmidhauser, John R. 1961. “Judicial Behavior and the Sectional Crisis of 1837–1860.” Journal of Politics 23(4): 615–640.Google Scholar
Scott, Joseph E, Eitle, David J, and Skovron, Sandra Evans. 1990. “Obscenity and the Law.” Law and Human Behavior 14(2): 139–150.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A, and Spaeth, Harold J. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Segall, Eric J. 2012. Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court Is Not a Court and Its Justices Are Not Judges. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. 1988. “Alternative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Impact: Miranda in Five State Courts.” American Politics Quarterly 16(4): 425–444.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R, and Sheehan, Reginald S. 1990. “Supreme Court Impact on Compliance and Outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of Appeals.” Western Political Quarterly 43(2): 297–316.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R, Segal, Jeffrey A, and Cameron, Charles M.. 1994. “The Hierarchy of Justice: Testing a Principal-Agent Model of Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interactions.” American Journal of Political Science 38(3): 673–696.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F, and Hansford, Thomas G. 2000. “Measuring Legal Change: The Reliability and Validity of Shepard’s Citations.” Political Research Quarterly 53(2): 327–341.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F, and Hansford, Thomas G. 2002. “The US Supreme Court’s Incorporation and Interpretation of Precedent.” Law & Society Review 36(1): 139–160.Google Scholar
Steinman, Adam N. 2008. “What Is the Erie Doctrine? (And What Does It Mean for the Contemporary Politics of Judicial Federalism).” Notre Dame Law Review 84(1): 245–330.Google Scholar
Tarr, G Alan. 1977. Judicial Impact and State Supreme Courts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Tarr, G Alan. 2012. Without Fear or Favor: Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability in the States. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Unah, Isaac, and Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2006. “US Supreme Court Decision Making, Case Salience, and the Attitudinal Model.” Law & Policy 28(3): 295–320.Google Scholar
Veeder, Van Vechten. 1907a. “A Century of English Judicature, 1800–1900.” In Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Vol. 1, ed. Committee of the Association of American Law Schools, 730–837. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Veeder, Van Vechten. 1907b. “The English Reports, 1537–1865.” In Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Vol. 2, ed. Committee of the Association of American Law Schools, 123–155. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Jr, Vining, Richard, L, and Wilhelm, Teena. 2011. “Measuring Case Salience in State Courts of Last Resort.” Political Research Quarterly 64(3): 559–572.Google Scholar
Wallace, J Clifford. 2001. “The Framers’ Establishment Clause: How High the Wall.” Brigham Young University Law Review 2001(2): 755–772.Google Scholar
Wellford, Shea Sisk. 1994. “Tort Actions against Churches – What Protections Does the First Amendment Provide.” University of Memphis Law Review 25(1): 193–234.Google Scholar
Westerland, Chad, Segal, Jeffrey A, Epstein, Lee, Cameron, Charles M, and Comparato, Scott. 2010. “Strategic Defiance and Compliance in the US Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science 54(4): 891–905.Google Scholar
Jr, Wilkes, Donald, E. 1973. “The New Federalism in Criminal Procedure: State Court Evasion of the Burger Court.” Kentucky Law Journal 62(2): 421–451.Google Scholar
Williams, EK. 1926. “Stare Decisis.” Canadian Bar Review 4(5): 289–301.Google Scholar
Windett, Jason H, Harden, Jeffrey J, and Halsl, Matthew EK. 2015. “Estimating Dynamic Ideal Points for State Supreme Courts.” Political Analysis 23(3): 461–469.Google Scholar
Wise, Edward M. 1974. “The Doctrine of Stare Decisis.” Wayne Law Review 21(4): 1043–1060.Google Scholar
Wofford, Claire B. 2015. “Assessing the Anecdotes: Amicus Curiae, Legal Rules, and the US Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal 36(3): 274–294.Google Scholar
Wofford, Claire B. 2018. “Says Who? Case Participants and Legal Doctrine in the US Supreme Court.” Journal of Political Science 46: 35–65.Google Scholar
Wofford, Claire B. 2019. “The Structure of Legal Doctrine in a Judicial Hierarchy.” Journal of Law and Courts 7(2): 263–280.Google Scholar
Zane, John Maxcy. 1907. “The Five Ages of the Bench and Bar in England.” In Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Vol. 1, ed. Committee of the Association of American Law Schools, 625–739. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Michael P. Fix, Georgia State University, Benjamin J. Kassow, University of North Dakota
  • Book: US Supreme Court Doctrine in the State High Courts
  • Online publication: 25 August 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108891141.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Michael P. Fix, Georgia State University, Benjamin J. Kassow, University of North Dakota
  • Book: US Supreme Court Doctrine in the State High Courts
  • Online publication: 25 August 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108891141.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Michael P. Fix, Georgia State University, Benjamin J. Kassow, University of North Dakota
  • Book: US Supreme Court Doctrine in the State High Courts
  • Online publication: 25 August 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108891141.009
Available formats
×