Topic
Majority opinion
About: Majority opinion is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 4107 publications have been published within this topic receiving 54845 citations. The topic is also known as: opinion of the court.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Journal Article•
TL;DR: On the basis of the claim on initiating the case, submitted by twenty Saeima deputies, i.e., Miroslavs Mitrofanovs, Aija Barča, Leons Bojārs, Pēteris Salkazanovs and Jānis Leja, Egils Baldzēns, Aleksandrs Bartaševičs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Jēnis Ādamsons, Pāvels Maksimovs, Jakovs Pliners, Juris Sok
Abstract: on the basis of the claim on initiating the case, submitted by twenty Saeima deputies, i.e., Miroslavs Mitrofanovs, Aija Barča, Leons Bojārs, Pēteris Salkazanovs, Jānis Leja, Egils Baldzēns, Aleksandrs Bartaševičs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Jānis Ādamsons, Pāvels Maksimovs, Jānis Urbanovičs, Boriss Cilēvičs, Jakovs Pliners, Juris Sokolovskis, Modris Lujāns, Aleksandrs Golubovs, Jānis Jurkāns, Oļegs Deņisovs, Oļegs Tolmačovs and Boris Rastopirkins
43 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: This paper found evidence that the assignment of issue codes to these cases, which govern the subsequent assignment of "direction" to the Court's judgments, is conditional on both case disposition and the known preferences of the deciding court, in the direction predicted by the hypothesis of confirmation bias.
Abstract: We ask whether the widely used direction of decision and direction of vote variables in the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database (USSCJD) are contaminated by confirmation bias, or have been affected by expectations about the likely effects of judicial preferences on case outcomes. Using a sample of generally comparable cases, we find evidence that the assignment of issue codes to these cases, codes that govern the subsequent assignment of “direction” to the Court's judgments, is conditional on both case disposition and the known preferences of the deciding court, in the direction predicted by the hypothesis of confirmation bias. We also find that the USSCJD direction variables overstate the effect of judicial preferences and understate the effect of congressional preferences on case outcomes, relative to objectively coded measures of the Court's judgments.
43 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the participation and success rates of state and local governments before the U.S. Supreme Court during 1953-1989 and found that they experienced greater access to the Court over time, and that they have been winning an increasingly higher proportion of cases when appearing as direct parties, with some interesting variations depending on the type of case and litigants.
Abstract: This article examines the participation and success rates of state and local governments before the U.S. Supreme Court during 1953-1989. We find that they have experienced greater access to the Court over time, and that they have been winning an increasingly higher proportion of cases when appearing as direct parties, with some interesting variations depending on the type of case and litigants. Time-series analysis indicates that the most important factor in state and local success is the increasingly conservative ideology of the Court from the Warren years to the Rehnquist Court. An exception to improved performance is federalism cases. The findings have implications for the future character of American federalism and the development of a general model of judicial decision making.
42 citations
TL;DR: The role of a court that is neither a "decider" nor an "information provider" is examined in this paper, where it is shown that a court ruling is not binding and bargaining can occur before and after the court has ruled.
Abstract: Why do states build international courts, submit cases, and enforce court judgments? This article examines the role of a court that is neither a “decider” nor an “information provider.” Litigation is costly and does not reveal private information. The court’s ruling is not binding and bargaining can occur before and after the court has ruled. Nevertheless, an alternative dispute resolution mechanism emerges: court rulings can coordinate endogenous multilateral enforcement. Disinterested states will enforce to ensure that they can profitably use the court in the future. Accepting jurisdiction of the court allows a state to make efficiency-enhancing “trades,” winning high-value disputes in exchange for losing low-value disputes. This is possible because litigation is a screening device: states only sue when they derive relatively high value from the disputed asset. The use of the court as a coordination device for multilateral enforcement allows for the existence of a court with endogenous enforcement and j...
42 citations
TL;DR: The authors discusses the challenges of intertemporal preference estimation and revises, updates, and extends Bailey and Maltzman (2011) to present Supreme Court preference estimates that are more defensibly comparable across time and institutions.
Abstract: Court scholars have a voracious appetite for Supreme Court preference measures. Several articles question whether widely used Martin and Quinn (2002, 2011) scores provide valid intertemporal measures, calling into question virtually an entire generation of quantitative research on the Court. This article discusses the challenges of intertemporal preference estimation and revises, updates, and extends Bailey and Maltzman (2011) to present Supreme Court preference estimates that are more defensibly comparable across time and institutions.
42 citations