IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v87y2006i2p380-394.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reconsidering the Impact of Jurisprudential Regimes

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin M. Scott

Abstract

Objectives. Recent work on Supreme Court decision making has argued that different areas of law demonstrate the creation of jurisprudential regimes, which alter the importance of different case facts to the justices, suggesting that the justices do alter their behavior in response to changes in the law. However, the work on jurisprudential regimes has suggested that all justices, or at least all justices who participate in establishing the regime, react similarly to the regime creation. Methods. I separate out the justices who support the establishment of the regime and those who oppose the establishment of the regime to test the hypothesis that majority and dissenting justices react differently to the creation of jurisprudential regimes. Results. Both sets of justices react to the establishment of the regime, but the change in behavior of the dissenters occurs after that of the majority. Conclusions. These results suggest that the impact of jurisprudential regimes may be even more substantial than previously believed.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin M. Scott, 2006. "Reconsidering the Impact of Jurisprudential Regimes," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(2), pages 380-394, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:87:y:2006:i:2:p:380-394
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00386.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00386.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00386.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Keren Weinshall‐Margel, 2011. "Attitudinal and Neo‐Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 556-586, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:87:y:2006:i:2:p:380-394. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.