Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T18:54:08.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

S. Sidney Ulmer
S. Sidney Ulmer*
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the period from 1947 to 1976, the United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari in more than half the cases involving conflict with Supreme Court precedent or intercircuit conflict. In both instances, the denial rate has been higher in the Burger Court than in the Vinson and Warren Courts and denial has been greater for intercircuit conflict cases than for cases in which the ruling in the lower court was in conflict with one or more Supreme Court precedents. When conflict was conceptualized as a predictor of decision and examined along with federal government as petitioning party, economic issues, and civil liberty issues, it was found to have 4 to 7 times the predictive power of the other variables combined for the Vinson and Warren Courts. For the Burger Court, the petitioning party variable was found to be a better predictor than conflict, but conflict was a much better predictor than the subject variables. Discriminant function models using the four predictor variables were able to account for up to 36.9% of the variance in the Supreme Court's certiorari decisions, almost all of which was the result of the contributions made by the conflict and party factors.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , December 1984 , pp. 901 - 911
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American Bar Association Journal, 1983, 69, 424.Google Scholar
Brennan, W. J. Remarks at the third circuit judicial conference. 1982.Google Scholar
Brenner, S.The new certiorari game. Journal of Politics, 1979, 41, 649–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark v. U.S. 381 F. 2d 230, CA 10 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, F.Conflicts involving federal law: A review of cases presented to the Supreme Court. Structure and internal procedures: Recommendations for change. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975, pp. 93–94.Google Scholar
Frankfurter, F., & Landis, J. M.The business of the Supreme Court. New York: Macmillan, 1927.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, S. A.Quantitative analysis of political data. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1974.Google Scholar
Kort, F.Regression analysis and discriminant analysis: An application of R. A. Fisher's theorem to data in political science. American Political Science Review, 1973, 67, 555–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanrao Inc. v. U.S. 422 F. 2d 481, CA 6 (1970).Google Scholar
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee 1 Wheat. 304, 1816.Google Scholar
Provine, D. M.Case selection in the U.S. Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. D.Messages and papers of the presidents. New York: Bureau of National Literature, 1916.Google Scholar
Songer, D. R.Concern for policy outputs as a cue for Supreme Court decisions on certiorari. Journal of Politics, 1979, 47, 1185–1194.Google Scholar
Stern, R. L., & Gressman, E.Supreme Court practice (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1978.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. P.Some thoughts on judicial restraint. Judicature, 1982, 66, 177–183.Google Scholar
Taft, W. H.The attacks on the courts and legal procedures. Kentucky Law Journal, 1916, 5, 3–24.Google Scholar
Taft, W. H.Hearings before the committee on the judiciary. HR, 67th Congress, 2nd Session, 1922, p. 2.Google Scholar
Taft, W. H.The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the act of February 13, 1972. Yale Law Journal, 1925, 35, 1, 2–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talarico, S. M.An application of discriminant analysis in criminal justice research. Jurimetrics Journal, 1977, 18, 18, 46.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, J., Schick, M., Muraskin, M., & Rosen, D.The Supreme Court's certiorari jurisdiction: Cue theory. In Ulmer, S. S. (Ed.). Courts, law and judicial processes. New York: Free Press, 1981, pp. 273–283.Google Scholar
Teger, S. H., & Kosinski, D.The cue theory of Supreme Court certiorari jurisdiction: A reconsideration. Journal of Politics, 1980, 42, 834–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, S. S.Conflict with Supreme Court precedents and the granting of plenary review. Journal of Politics, 1983, 45, 474–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, S. S.Courts, law and judicial processes. New York: Free Press, 1981, pp. 284–298.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. S.Dimensionality and change in judicial behavior. In Herndon, J. H. & Bernd, J. (Eds.). Mathematical applications in political science VII. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1974, pp. 40–67.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. S.The discriminant function and a theoretical context for its use in estimating the votes of judges. In Grossman, J. & Tanenhaus, J. (Eds.). Frontiers of judicial research. New York: Wiley, 1969, pp. 335–369.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. S.Mathematical models for predicting judicial behavior. In Bernd, J. L. (Ed.). Mathematical applications in political science II. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1967, pp. 67–95.Google Scholar
U.S. v. Mountain States Mixed Feed Co. 365 F. 2d. 244, CA 10 (1966).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Patillo 438 F. 2d 13, CA 4 (1971).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Faleafine 492 F. 2d 18, CA 9 (1974).Google Scholar
U.S. Law Week. 1980, 48: 4344.Google Scholar
Wasby, S. L.Continuity and change from the Warren to the Burger court. Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear, 1976.Google Scholar
Watts v. U.S. 402 F. 2d 676, D.C. Cir. (1969).Google Scholar
White, B. Remarks before the American Bar Association annual meeting, August 1982.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.