IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v86y1992i02p464-471_08.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ideology, Status, and The Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court

Author

Listed:
  • Sheehan, Reginald S.
  • Mishler, William
  • Songer, Donald R.

Abstract

A substantial literature on lower federal courts and state courts suggests that the “haves” usually come out ahead in litigation because they possess superior resources for it and they reap advantages from their repeat player status. We investigate the success of 10 categories of litigants before the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts to determine whether the resources or experience of litigants has effects on Supreme Court outcomes paralleling those found in the courts below. While different categories of litigants are found to have very different rates of success, those differences do not consistently favor litigants with greater resources. A time series analysis of the success of different categories of litigants over the 36 years studied suggests that the changing ideological complexion of the Court has a greater impact on the success of litigants than differences among litigants in resources and experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Sheehan, Reginald S. & Mishler, William & Songer, Donald R., 1992. "Ideology, Status, and The Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(2), pages 464-471, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:86:y:1992:i:02:p:464-471_08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400089097/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. Justin Wedeking, 2010. "Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 617-631, July.
    2. Denise M. Keele & Robert W. Malmsheimer & Donald W. Floyd & Lianjun Zhang, 2009. "An Analysis of Ideological Effects in Published Versus Unpublished Judicial Opinions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 213-239, March.
    3. Jeff Yates & Damon M. Cann & Brent D. Boyea, 2013. "Judicial Ideology and the Selection of Disputes for U.S. Supreme Court Adjudication," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 847-865, December.
    4. Maxwell Mak & Andrew H. Sidman & Udi Sommer, 2013. "Is Certiorari Contingent on Litigant Behavior? Petitioners' Role in Strategic Auditing," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 54-75, March.
    5. Michael S. Kang & Joanna M. Shepherd, 2015. "Partisanship in State Supreme Courts: The Empirical Relationship between Party Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decision Making," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 161-185.
    6. Menachem Hofnung & Keren Weinshall Margel, 2010. "Judicial Setbacks, Material Gains: Terror Litigation at the Israeli High Court of Justice," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 664-692, December.
    7. Paul M. Collins, Jr. & Wendy L. Martinek, 2011. "The Small Group Context: Designated District Court Judges in the U.S. Courts of Appeals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 177-205, March.

    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:86:y:1992:i:02:p:464-471_08. 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.