IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v78y1984i04p901-911_25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable

Author

Listed:
  • Ulmer, S. Sidney

Abstract

In the period from 1947 to 1976, the United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari in more than half the cases involving conflict with Supreme Court precedent or intercircuit conflict. In both instances, the denial rate has been higher in the Burger Court than in the Vinson and Warren Courts and denial has been greater for intercircuit conflict cases than for cases in which the ruling in the lower court was in conflict with one or more Supreme Court precedents. When conflict was conceptualized as a predictor of decision and examined along with federal government as petitioning party, economic issues, and civil liberty issues, it was found to have 4 to 7 times the predictive power of the other variables combined for the Vinson and Warren Courts. For the Burger Court, the petitioning party variable was found to be a better predictor than conflict, but conflict was a much better predictor than the subject variables. Discriminant function models using the four predictor variables were able to account for up to 36.9% of the variance in the Supreme Court's certiorari decisions, almost all of which was the result of the contributions made by the conflict and party factors.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney, 1984. "The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 78(4), pages 901-911, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:78:y:1984:i:04:p:901-911_25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400256414/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Joshua A Strayhorn, 2019. "Competing signals in the judicial hierarchy," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(3), pages 308-329, July.
    2. Deborah Beim & Kelly Rader, 2019. "Legal Uniformity in American Courts," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 448-478, September.
    3. Joshua A. Strayhorn, 2020. "Ideological Competition and Conflict in the Judicial Hierarchy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 371-384, April.

    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:cup:apsrev:v:78:y:1984:i:04:p:901-911_25. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.