Although the concept of precedent is basic to the operation of the legal system, there has not yet been a full-length empirical study of why U.S. Supreme Court justices have chosen to alter precedent. This book attempts to fill that gap by analyzing those decisions of the Vinson, Warren, and Burger courts, as well as the first six terms of the Rehnquist Court--a span of forty-seven years (1946-1992)--that formally altered precedent. The authors summarize previous studies of precedent and the Court, assess the conference voting of justices, and compile a list of overruling and overruled cases.

The Supreme Court Compendium is the only reference that presents historical and statistical information on every important aspect of the U.S. Supreme Court, including its history, development as an institution, the justices backgrounds, nominations, and confirmations, and the Court's relationship with the public and other governmental and judicial bodies. The newest edition of this comprehensive reference includes important new perspective on the legacy of the Rehnquist court. Readers will also find: An institutional overview of the Court's history including a chronology of important events from 1787-2006, important Congressional legislation relating to the Supreme Court, internet sites relating to law and courts, and much more Background information on all the justices such as family backgrounds, childhood environments, marital status, educational and employment histories, political experiences and trends in voting agreement The political and legal environment of the Court is presented including the success rate of the United States as a party before the Supreme Court, the rates of success of various administrative agencies, and state participation in court litigation with success rates This new edition includes more than 180 tables and charts and is updated to cover Supreme Court events through the 2005-2006 term. This reference is an invaluable resource to judicial scholars, students, and those interested in the history of the Supreme Court.

The concept of precedent is basic to the operation of the legal system, and this book is a full-length empirical study of why US Supreme Court justices have chosen to alter precedent. It attempts to analyse those decisions of the Vison, Warren and Burger Courts, as well as the first six terms of the Rehnquist Court - a span of 47 years (1946-1992) - that formally altered precedent. The authors summarize previous studies of precedent and the Court, assess the conference voting of justices and compile a list of overruling and overruled cases. Additionally the authors draw a distinction between personal and institutional stare decisis. By using the attitudinal model of Supreme Court decision-making, which is normally seen as antithetical to the legal mode of voting, the authors find that it is the individual justices' ideologies which explain their voting behavior.

This book examines the American legal system, including a comprehensive treatment of the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite this treatment, the 'in' from the title deserves emphasis, for it extensively examines lower courts, providing separate chapters on state courts, the US District Courts, and the US Courts of Appeals. The book analyzes these courts from a legal/extralegal framework, drawing different conclusions about the relative influence of each based on institutional structures and empirical evidence. The book is also tied together through its attention to the relationship between lower courts and the Supreme Court. Additionally, Election 2000 litigation provides a common substantive topic linking many of the chapters. Finally, it provides extended coverage to the legal process, with separate chapters on civil procedure, evidence, and criminal procedure.

This book examines the American legal system, including a comprehensive treatment of the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite this treatment, the 'in' from the title deserves emphasis, for it extensively examines lower courts, providing separate chapters on state courts, the US District Courts, and the US Courts of Appeals. The book analyzes these courts from a legal/extralegal framework, drawing different conclusions about the relative influence of each based on institutional structures and empirical evidence. The book is also tied together through its attention to the relationship between lower courts and the Supreme Court. Additionally, Election 2000 litigation provides a common substantive topic linking many of the chapters. Finally, it provides extended coverage to the legal process, with separate chapters on civil procedure, evidence, and criminal procedure.

Authored by two leading scholars of the Supreme Court and its policy making, this study systematically presents and validates the use of the attitudinal model to explain and predict Supreme Court decision making. In the process, it critiques the two major alternative models of Supreme Court decision making and their major variants--the legal and rational choice. Using the U.S. Supreme Court Data Base, the justices' private papers, and other sources of information, the book analyzes the appointment process, certiorari, the decision on the merits, opinion assignments, and the formation of opinion coalitions.

This book examines the influence of precedent on the behavior of the US Supreme Court justices throughout the Court's history. Supreme Court justices almost always "follow" precedent, in that they always cite precedents for the positions they take. Because there are always precedents on either side of a case for justices to follow, following precedent does not mean that the justices are ever influenced by precedent. Employing the assumption that for precedent to be an influence on the behavior of justices, it must lead to a result they would not otherwise have reached, the authors show that precedent rarely controls the justices' votes.

This book examines the influence of precedent on the behavior of the US Supreme Court justices throughout the Court's history. Supreme Court justices almost always "follow" precedent, in that they always cite precedents for the positions they take. Because there are always precedents on either side of a case for justices to follow, following precedent does not mean that the justices are ever influenced by precedent. Employing the assumption that for precedent to be an influence on the behavior of justices, it must lead to a result they would not otherwise have reached, the authors show that precedent rarely controls the justices' votes.

Authored by two leading scholars of the Supreme Court and its policy making, this study systematically presents and validates the use of the attitudinal model to explain and predict Supreme Court decision making. In the process, it critiques the two major alternative models of Supreme Court decision making and their major variants--the legal and rational choice. Using the U.S. Supreme Court Data Base, the justices' private papers, and other sources of information, the book analyzes the appointment process, certiorari, the decision on the merits, opinion assignments, and the formation of opinion coalitions.

Prepared for students by renowned professors and noted experts, here are the most extensive and proven study aids available, covering all the major areas of study in college curriculums. Each guide features: up-to-date scholarship; an easy-to-follow narrative outline form; specially designed and formatted pages; and much more.