Studies of policy making by courts need to examine the actual policy adopted in the majority opinion rather than studying votes. The authors examine the responsiveness of state supreme courts to precedents announced by the US Supreme Court by examining their treatment of the precedents in their opinions, testing the utility of precedent vitality versus the impact of ideological preferences. They find that the vitality of Supreme Court precedent is a strong predictor of the way in which the precedent is treated by state courts, even after controlling for ideological distance and institutional features of state court systems.
BeattyJ. K.1972. State court evasion of United States Supreme Court mandates during the last decade of the Warren Court. Valparaiso Law Review6:260-85.
2.
BracePaulHallMelinda Gann. 1990. Neo-institutionalism and dissent in state supreme courts. Journal of Politics52: 54-70.
3.
BracePaulHallMelinda Gann. 1993. Integrated models of judicial dissent. Journal of Politics55:914-35.
4.
BracePaulHallMelinda Gann. 1997. The interplay of preferences, case facts, context, and rules in the politics of judicial choice. Journal of Politics59:1206-31.
5.
BracePaulLangerLauraHallMelinda Gann. 2000. Measuring the preferences of state supreme court judges. Journal of Politics62:387-413.
6.
CanonBradley C.1973. Reactions of state supreme courts to a US Supreme Court civil liberties decision. Law and Society Review8:109-34.
7.
CanonBradley C.1974. Organizational contumacy in the transmission of judicial policies: The Mapp, Escobedo, Miranda and Gault cases. Villanova Law Review20:50-79.
8.
CanonBradley C.KolsonK.1971. Compliance with Gault in rural America: The case of Kentucky. Journal of Family Law10:300-326.
9.
DanelskiDavid J.1986. Causes and consequences of conflict and its result on in the Supreme Court. In Judicial conflict and consensus: Behavioral studies of American appellate courts, ed. LambCharles M.GoldmanSheldon, 21-49. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
10.
EpsteinLeeMartinAndrew D.SegalJeffrey A.WesterlandChad. 2007. The Judicial common space. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization23(2):303-325.
11.
GruhlJ.1980. The Supreme Court’s impact on the law of libel: Compliance by lower federal courts. Western Political Quarterly33:502-19.
12.
GruhlJ.1981. State supreme courts and the US Supreme Court’s post-Miranda rulings. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology72:886-913.
13.
HallMelinda Gann. 1992. Electoral politics and strategic voting in state supreme courts. Journal of Politics54: 427-46.
14.
HallMelinda GannBracePaul. 1994. The vicissitudes of death by decree: Forces influencing capital punishment decision making in state supreme courts. Social Science Quarterly75:136-51.
15.
HallMelinda GannBracePaul. 1995. Studying courts comparatively: The view from the American states. Political Research Quarterly48:5-29.
16.
HansfordThomas G.SpriggsJames F.II. 2006. The politics of precedent on the US Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
JohnsonCharles. 1979. Lower court reactions to Supreme Court decisions: A quantitative examination. American Journal of Political Science23:792-804.
KolenikovStanislav. 2000. GRMEDF: Stata module to compute row medians with egen [computer file]. Boston College Department of Economics: Boston, MA.
20.
LangerLaura. 2002. Judicial review in state supreme courts: A comparative study. Albany: State University of New York Press.
21.
LaxJeffrey R.CameronCharles M.2007. Bargaining and opinion assignment on the US Supreme Court. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization23: 276-302.
22.
MaltzmanForrestSpriggsJames F.IIWahlbeckPaul J.2000. Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The collegial game. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
ManwaringD. R.1968. The impact of Mapp v. Ohio. In The Supreme Court as policy maker: Three studies on the impact of judicial decisions, ed. EversonD. H., 1-43. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, Public Affairs Bureau.
24.
PacelleRichard L.BaumLawrence. 1992. Supreme Court authority in the judiciary: A study of remands. American Politics Quarterly20:169-91.
25.
PeltasonJack W.1961. Fifty-eight lonely men. New York: Harcourt Brace.
26.
PrimoDavid M.JacobsmeierMatthew L.MilyoJeffrey. 2007. Estimating the impact of state policies and institutions with mixed-level data. State Politics and Policy Quarterly7: 446-59.
27.
SegalJeffrey A.SpaethHarold J.1996. The influence of stare decisis on the votes of United States Supreme Court justices. American Journal of Political Science40: 971-1003.
28.
SegalJeffrey A.SpaethHarold J.2002. The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Shepard’s Company. 1993. Shepard’s Citations in-house training manual. Photocopy.
30.
SongerDonald R.1983. The impact of the Supreme Court on outcomes in the US courts of appeals: A comparison of law issue areas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Birmingham, AL.
31.
SongerDonald R.1987. The impact of the Supreme Court on trends in economic policy making in the United States courts of appeals. Journal of Politics49:830-41.
32.
SongerDonald R.1988. Alternative approaches to the study of judicial impact: Miranda in five state courts. American Politics Quarterly16:425-44.
33.
SongerDonald R.SegalJeffrey A.CameronCharles M.1994. The hierarchy of justice: Testing a principal-agent model of Supreme Court–circuit court interactions. American Journal of Political Science36:963-84.
34.
SongerDonald R.SheehanReginald S.1990. Supreme Court impact on compliance and outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of Appeals. Western Political Quarterly43:297-316.
35.
SpriggsJames F.IIHansfordThomas G.2001. Explaining the overruling of US Supreme Court precedent. Journal of Politics63:1091-1111.
36.
TarrG. A.1977. Judicial impact and state supreme courts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
37.
WasbyStephen L.1970. The impact of the United States Supreme Court. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
38.
WesterlandChad.2003. Who owns the majority opinion?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.
