Research on organizational behavior suggests that the authority of higher officials for their subordinates is relatively low for subordinates whose work is highly specialized. If this proposition is valid, the Supreme Court should have more limited authority for specialized federal courts than for their generalist counterparts. To test this expectation, citations to the Court's deci sions in patent law were analyzed. It was posited that the former Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA), a specialized court, cited the Supreme Court in patent cases less often than did the generalist federal courts of appeals. This hypothesis was strongly supported according to several measures of citation frequency. The results emphasize the potential impact of specialization on hierarchical authority in organizations and underline the consequences of specialization for judicial behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baum, Lawrence1977. 'Judicial Specialization, Litigant Influence, and Substantive Policy: The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals." Law & Society Review11: 823-50.
2.
Brown, Jo. Baily.1940 "Developments in the Patent Law as Effected by Adjudications ." Journal of the Patent Office Society22: 587-601.
3.
Caldeira, Gregory A.1985. "The Transmission of Legal Precedent: A Study of State Supreme Courts." American Political Science Review79: 178-93.
4.
Cavenay, In re. 1967. 386 F.2d 917 (C.C.PA.).
5.
Dornbusch, Sanford M., and W Richard Scott .1975. Evaluation and the Exercise of Authority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
6.
Dubin, Robert.1974. Human Relations in Administration, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7.
Friedman, Lawrence M., Robert A. Kagan, Bliss Cartwright , and Stanton Wheeler1981. "State Supreme Courts: A Century of Style and Citation." Stanford Law Review33: 773-818.
8.
Gouldner, Alvin W.1959. "Organizational Analysis." In Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr, eds., Sociology Today: Problems and Prospects. New York: Basic Books.
9.
Harris, Peter1985. "Ecology and Culture in the Communication of Precedent Among State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970." Law & Society Review19: 449-86.
10.
Howard, J. Woodford, Jr. 1981. Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
Kell-Dot Industries, Inc. v. Graves. 1966. 361 F.2d 25 (8th Cir.).
12.
Ladd, David L.1959. "Business Aggression Under the Patent System." University of Chicago Law Review26: 353-75.
13.
Lay, Donald P1970. "Patent Litigation as Viewed by the Appeals Judge ." APLA Bulletin1970: 502-12.
14.
Mott, Rodney L.1936. "Judicial Influence." American Political Science Review30: 295-315.
15.
Nagel, Stuart S.1962. "Sociometric Relations Among American Courts." Southwestern Social Science Quarterly43: 136-42.
16.
Peabody, Robert.1964. Organizational Authority. Chicago : Aldine-Atherton.
17.
Posner, Richard A.1983. "Will the Federal Courts of Appeals Survive until 1984? An Essay on Delegation and Specialization of the Judicial Function." Southern California Law Review56: 761-91.
18.
Reid, Traciel V1988. 'Judicial Policy-making and Implementation: An Empirical Examination." Western Political Quarterly41: 509-27.
19.
Revesz, Richard L.1990. "Specialized Courts and the Administrative Lawmaking System ." University of Pennsylvania Law Review138: 1111-74.
20.
Reynolds, Edwin L.1960. "The Standard of Invention in the Patent Office ." In William B. Ball, ed., Dynamics of the Patent System. New York: Central Book Co.
21.
Rich, Giles S.1972. "Laying the Ghost of the 'Invention' Requirement." APLAQuarterly Journal1:26-45.
22.
_. 1980. A Brief History of the United States Court of Customs and Patent AppealsWashington, DC: Government Printing Office.
23.
Ripley, Randall B., and Grace A. Franklin .1987. Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy, 4th ed. Chicago : Dorsey Press.
24.
Schwartz, Helene E.1981. "Oversight of Minimization Compliance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: How the Watchdogs are Doing Their Jobs ." Rutgers Law Journal12: 405-91.
25.
Scott, W. Richard.1987. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .
26.
Seidman, Harold, and Robert Gilmour1986. Politics, Position, and Power: From the Positive to the Regulatory State. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
Shapiro, Martin. 1968. The Supreme Court and Administrative Agencies. New York : Free Press.
28.
Shortell, In re. 1944. 142 F.2d 292 (C.C.PA.).
29.
Songer, Donald R.1988. "Case Selection in Judicial Impact Research." Western Political Quarterly41: 569-82.
30.
Wilson, James Q.1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books .
