Supreme Court Decisions

About: Supreme Court Decisions is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1804 publications have been published within this topic receiving 17066 citations.

Citations of Foreign Decisions in Australian State Supreme Courts Over the Course of the Twentieth Century: An Empirical Analysis

Abstract: Following the United States Supreme Court decisions in Atkins v Virginia, 536 US 304 (2002), Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558 (2003) and Roper v Simmons, 543 US 551 (2005) there has been much discussion about whether, and to what extent, courts in the United States should, and do, cite foreign law While there has also been some empirical research on this topic for United States courts using citation analysis, there has been little comparative perspective This study offers a comparative perspective by providing a citation analysis of foreign law cited by the six Australian State Supreme Courts at decade intervals over the period 1905 to 2005 The main findings are that over this period there has been a significant fall in the proportion of English cases cited; however, the proportion of citations of foreign precedent from countries other than England has remained consistently low The study examines which specific English courts have been cited and which countries other than England get cited The study also considers which State Supreme Courts cite the most foreign precedent and the areas of the law in which foreign precedent is most often cited The study concludes by briefly considering the implications of citing little foreign precedent for the role of the State courts in the development of the common law in Australia

The White Primary Rulings: A Case Study in the Consequences of Supreme Court Decisionmaking

Abstract: Political scientists and legal scholars have written a good deal in recent years on the consequences of Supreme Court decisions. Much of this scholarship has been skeptical of the capacity of courts to produce significant social change. Most notably, Professor Gerald Rosenberg has declared the notion that courts can reform society a "hollow hope." While much of my own scholarship has reached conclusions broadly similar to those of Professor Rosenberg, it is a mistake to conclude that Supreme Court decisions in the civil rights context never made much difference. The Court's most important white primary decision, Smith v. Allwright, inaugurated a political revolution in the urban South. This Article considers both the circumstances that enabled Smith to accomplish what it did and the limitations of that accomplishment. My goal is to shed light on the conditions that enable and disable Supreme Court decisions from effectuating significant social change. Part I summarizes the Supreme Court's three pre-Smith white primary decisions. Part II provides legal and political background to Smith v. Allwright and also describes the post-Smith history of the white primary. Part III, the core of the Article, describes the impact of Smith on southern black voter registration. Relying principally on archival material mined from the NAACP Papers, I describe how southern blacks and whites responded to Smith and identify the political and social conditions that enabled Smith to launch a revolution in black political participation in the urban South. This Part also examines the factors that largely nullified the impact of Smith in the rural South. The Conclusion addresses the question of why the Supreme Court's intervention in the white primary context was so much more immediately efficacious than were either its contemporaneous decisions involving criminal procedure issues affecting southern blacks or its slightly later ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

Use Patents, Carve-Outs, and Incentives — A New Battle in the Drug-Patent Wars

Abstract: The Hatch–Waxman Act aims to strike a balance between the innovation incentives provided by patents and the greater access provided by generic drugs. Now the tactical landscape in the drug-patent wars has shifted again, with a recently decided Supreme Court case.

Supreme Court decision on violent video games was based on the First Amendment, not scientific evidence.

Abstract: Comments on the article, "Violent video games and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the scientific community in the wake of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association," by C. J. Ferguson (see record 2013-04752-001). The commentators agree with Ferguson that the U.S. Supreme Court case involving violent video games offers scientists a unique opportunity to reflect on violent video game research and findings. However, they disagree with many of the points he made. Due to space limits, they focus on five major areas of disagreement: 1) The Supreme Court decision was based on the First Amendment, not scientific evidence, 2) comparison of two amicus briefs, 3) some disagreement in the field does mean that the field is evenly divided, 4) what constitutes a trivial effect, and 5) laboratory measures of aggression are not trivial. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved). Language: en

The Most Dangerous Justice: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Mathematics

Abstract: We analyze the relative voting power of the Justices based upon Supreme Court decisions during October Term 1994 and October Term 1995. We take two approaches, both based on ideas derived from cooperative game theory. One of the measures we use has been used in connection with voting rights cases. After naming the Most Dangerous Justice, we conclude by identifying and explaining the inverse relationship between seniority and voting power.