Harold J. Spaeth - Böcker

Although the concept of precedent is basic to the operation of the legal system, there has not yet been a full-length empirical study of why US Supreme Court justices have chosen to alter precedent. This book attempts to fill this gap by analyzing those decisions of the Vinson, Warren, and Burgers courts, as well as the first six terms of the Rehnquist Court - a span of 47 years (1946-1992) - which formally altered precedent. The authors summarize previous studies of precedent and the Court, assess the conference voting of justices, and compile a list of overruling and overruled cases. Additionally, the authors draw a distinction between personal and instituional stare decisis. By using the attitudinal model of Supreme Court decision making, the authors find that it is the individual justices' ideologies which explain their voting behavior.

The concept of precedent is basic to the operation of the legal system, and this book is a full-length empirical study of why US Supreme Court justices have chosen to alter precedent. It attempts to analyse those decisions of the Vison, Warren and Burger Courts, as well as the first six terms of the Rehnquist Court - a span of 47 years (1946-1992) - that formally altered precedent. The authors summarize previous studies of precedent and the Court, assess the conference voting of justices and compile a list of overruling and overruled cases. Additionally the authors draw a distinction between personal and institutional stare decisis. By using the attitudinal model of Supreme Court decision-making, which is normally seen as antithetical to the legal mode of voting, the authors find that it is the individual justices' ideologies which explain their voting behavior.

This book, first published in 1999, examines the influence of precedent on the behavior of US Supreme Court justices throughout the Court's history. Under the assumption that for precedent to be an influence on the behavior of justices it must lead to a result they would not otherwise have reached, the results show that when justices disagree with the establishment of a precedent, they rarely shift from their previously stated views in subsequent cases. In other words, they are hardly ever influenced by precedent. Nevertheless, the doctrine of stare decisis does exhibit some low level influence on the justices in the least salient of the Court's decisions. The book examines these findings in light of several leading theories of judicial decision making.

This book examines the American legal system, including a comprehensive treatment of the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite this treatment, the 'in' from the title deserves emphasis, for it extensively examines lower courts, providing separate chapters on state courts, the US District Courts, and the US Courts of Appeals. The book analyzes these courts from a legal/extralegal framework, drawing different conclusions about the relative influence of each based on institutional structures and empirical evidence. The book is also tied together through its attention to the relationship between lower courts and the Supreme Court. Additionally, Election 2000 litigation provides a common substantive topic linking many of the chapters. Finally, it provides extended coverage to the legal process, with separate chapters on civil procedure, evidence, and criminal procedure.

This book, authored by two leading scholars of the Supreme Court and its policy making, systematically presents and validates the use of the attitudinal model to explain and predict Supreme Court decision making. In the process, it critiques the two major alternative models of Supreme Court decision making and their major variants: the legal and rational choice. Using the US Supreme Court Data Base, the justices' private papers, and other sources of information, the book analyzes the appointment process, certiorari, the decision on the merits, opinion assignments, and the formation of opinion coalitions. The book will be the definitive presentation of the attitudinal model as well as an authoritative critique of the legal and rational choice models. The book thoroughly reflects research done since the 1993 publication of its predecessor, as well as decisions and developments in the Supreme Court, including the momentous decision of Bush v. Gore.

This book examines the American legal system, including a comprehensive treatment of the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite this treatment, the 'in' from the title deserves emphasis, for it extensively examines lower courts, providing separate chapters on state courts, the US District Courts, and the US Courts of Appeals. The book analyzes these courts from a legal/extralegal framework, drawing different conclusions about the relative influence of each based on institutional structures and empirical evidence. The book is also tied together through its attention to the relationship between lower courts and the Supreme Court. Additionally, Election 2000 litigation provides a common substantive topic linking many of the chapters. Finally, it provides extended coverage to the legal process, with separate chapters on civil procedure, evidence, and criminal procedure.

This book, authored by two leading scholars of the Supreme Court and its policy making, systematically presents and validates the use of the attitudinal model to explain and predict Supreme Court decision making. In the process, it critiques the two major alternative models of Supreme Court decision making and their major variants: the legal and rational choice. Using the US Supreme Court Data Base, the justices' private papers, and other sources of information, the book analyzes the appointment process, certiorari, the decision on the merits, opinion assignments, and the formation of opinion coalitions. The book will be the definitive presentation of the attitudinal model as well as an authoritative critique of the legal and rational choice models. The book thoroughly reflects research done since the 1993 publication of its predecessor, as well as decisions and developments in the Supreme Court, including the momentous decision of Bush v. Gore.

This book, first published in 1999, examines the influence of precedent on the behavior of US Supreme Court justices throughout the Court's history. Under the assumption that for precedent to be an influence on the behavior of justices it must lead to a result they would not otherwise have reached, the results show that when justices disagree with the establishment of a precedent, they rarely shift from their previously stated views in subsequent cases. In other words, they are hardly ever influenced by precedent. Nevertheless, the doctrine of stare decisis does exhibit some low level influence on the justices in the least salient of the Court's decisions. The book examines these findings in light of several leading theories of judicial decision making.