The Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration

Abstract

Previous articleNext article No AccessResearch NotesThe Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A ReconsiderationStuart H. Teger, and Douglas KosinskiStuart H. Teger Search for more articles by this author , and Douglas Kosinski Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 42, Number 3Aug., 1980 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2130555 Views: 42Total views on this site Citations: 29Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1980 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Maxwell Mak, Andrew H. Sidman, Vincent Palmeri, Nico Denise, Ruben Huertero Judges’ Race and the Voting Rights Act: Perceived Expertise in Three-Judge District Court Panels, Justice System Journal 42, no.3-43-4 (Feb 2021): 375–393.https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881666Raymond V. Carman The Impact of the Judicial Role Orientation, (Mar 2017): 105–132.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53381-0_5Douglas Rice The Impact of Supreme Court Activity on the Judicial Agenda, Law & Society Review 48, no.11 (Jan 2014): 63–90.https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12056Yen-Tu Su, Han-wei Ho Judging, Sooner or Later: A Study of Decision Timing in Taiwan's Constitutional Court, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2014).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2467934Maxwell Mak, Andrew H. Sidman, Udi Sommer Is Certiorari Contingent on Litigant Behavior? Petitioners' Role in Strategic Auditing, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 10, no.11 (Jan 2013): 54–75.https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12002Gregory A. Caldeira, John R. Wright, Christopher J. Zorn Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court Revisited, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2012).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2109497Udi Sommer How rational are justices on the Supreme Court of the United States? Doctrinal considerations during agenda setting, Rationality and Society 23, no.44 (Nov 2011): 452–477.https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463111425014Udi Sommer Beyond Defensive Denials: Evidence from the Blackmun Files of a Broader Scope of Strategic Certiorari, Justice System Journal 31, no.33 (Dec 2013): 316–341.https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2010.10767973Robert J. Hume Administrative Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court: The Importance of Legal Signals, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4, no.33 (Nov 2007): 625–649.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00101.xRorie Spill Solberg, Leonard Ray Capacity, Attitudes, and Case Attributes: The Differential Success of the States before the United States Courts of Appeals, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5, no.22 (Aug 2016): 147–167.https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000500500203James Brent A Principal-Agent Analysis of U.S. Courts of Appeals Responses to Boerne V. Flores, American Politics Research 31, no.55 (Jul 2016): 557–570.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X032551700Sara C. Benesh, Saul Brenner, Harold J. Spaeth Aggressive Grants by Affirm-Minded Justices, American Politics Research 30, no.33 (Jul 2016): 219–234.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X02030003001Eric Heberlig, Rorie Spill CONGRESS AT COURT: MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AS AMICUS CURIAE, Southeastern Political Review 28, no.22 (Nov 2008): 189–212.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2000.tb00573.xCharles M. Cameron, Jeffrey A. Segal, Donald Songer Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions, American Political Science Review 94, no.11 (Aug 2014): 101–116.https://doi.org/10.2307/2586383Reginald S. Sheehan SOLICITOR GENERAL, PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT, AND THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SUPREME COURT DECISION MAKING, Southeastern Political Review 24, no.11 (Nov 2008): 55–75.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.1996.tb00432.xCook Beverly B. A Critique of the Supreme Court’s 1982 Agenda: Alternatives to the NYU Legal Model, Justice System Journal 17, no.22 (Sep 2014): 135–151.https://doi.org/10.1080/23277556.1994.10871199Kevin T. McGuire, Gregory A. Caldeira Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court, American Political Science Review 87, no.33 (Sep 2013): 717–726.https://doi.org/10.2307/2938746Pablo T. Spiller Agency discretion under judicial review, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 16, no.8-98-9 (Aug 1992): 185–200.https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(92)90095-3Reginald S. Sheehan Governmental Litigants, Underdogs, and Civil Liberties: a Reassessment of a Trend in Supreme Court Decisionmaking, Western Political Quarterly 45, no.11 (Sep 2016): 27–39.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299204500104David W. Neubauer Winners and losers: Dispositions of criminal appeals before the Louisiana supreme court, Justice Quarterly 8, no.11 (Mar 1991): 85–105.https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829100090921Jeffrey A. Segal Supreme Court Support for the Solicitor General: the Effect of Presidential Appointments, Western Political Quarterly 43, no.11 (Sep 2016): 137–152.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299004300110Gregory A. Caldeira, John R. Wright Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court, American Political Science Review 82, no.44 (Sep 2013): 1109–1127.https://doi.org/10.2307/1961752Jeffrey A. Segal, Cheryl D. Reedy The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: the Role of the Solicitor General, Western Political Quarterly 41, no.33 (Sep 2016): 553–568.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298804100309 S. Sidney Ulmer Governmental Litigants, Underdogs, and Civil Liberties in the Supreme Court: 1903-1968 Terms, The Journal of Politics 47, no.33 (Oct 2015): 899–909.https://doi.org/10.2307/2131216W. A. Taggart, M. R. Dezee A Note On Substantive Access Doctrines in the U.S. Supreme Court: a Comparative Analysis of the Warren and Burger Courts, Political Research Quarterly 38, no.11 (Mar 1985): 84–93.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298503800107S. Sidney Ulmer The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable, American Political Science Review 78, no.44 (Aug 2014): 901–911.https://doi.org/10.2307/1955797 S. Sidney Ulmer Conflict with Supreme Court Precedent and the Granting of Plenary Review, The Journal of Politics 45, no.22 (Oct 2015): 474–478.https://doi.org/10.2307/2130135James L. Gibson From simplicity to complexity: The development of theory in the study of judicial behavior, Political Behavior 5, no.11 (Jan 1983): 7–49.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989985C. Neal Tate The methodology of judicial behavior research: A review and critique, Political Behavior 5, no.11 (Jan 1983): 51–82.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989986