IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v39y1982i3p387-398.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An econometric analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's certiorari decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Palmer

Abstract

This paper presents a model of the Supreme Court's certiorari behavior. The analysis assumes that the Court accepts or rejects a case according to the individual justice's perceptions of how deciding the case will affect the law. The model generates two testable hypotheses. First, there is a positive relationship, ceteris paribus, between voting to grant certiorari and voting with the majority on the final decision. This hypothesis is somewhat similar to Brenner's and diametrically opposed to Provine's. Second, there is a positive relationship, ceteris paribus, between voting to grant certiorari and voting to reverse the lower court's decision. This hypothesis is similar to those developed by Ulmer, Baum, Brenner, and Provine although their underlying models are quite different. Both the hypotheses presented in this paper are supported by a maximum-likelihood logistic analysis of 512 cases decided by the Court between 1947 and 1956. Copyright Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1982

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Palmer, 1982. "An econometric analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's certiorari decisions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 387-398, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:39:y:1982:i:3:p:387-398
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00118795
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00118795
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00118795?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven Brams & Douglas Muzzio, 1977. "Unanimity in the supreme court: A game-theoretic explanation of the decision in the white house tapes case," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 67-83, December.
    2. Ulmer, S. Sidney, 1978. "Selecting Cases for Supreme Court Review: An Underdog Model," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(3), pages 902-910, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael C. Shupe & William M. Wright & Keith W. Hipel & Niall M. Fraser, 1980. "Nationalization of the Suez Canal," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 24(3), pages 477-493, September.
    2. Bustos, Álvaro & Jacobi, Tonja, 2015. "Communicating judicial retirement," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 107-118.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:39:y:1982:i:3:p:387-398. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.