Abstract
In this article, the impact of structural changes on the work of one state high court is examined. In finding that changes in form affect changes in substance, as measured by the number and type of cases heard, affirmation, reversal and dissent rates, and the “style” of written opinions, the author then assesses whether court reform “compels” or “merely facilitates” judicial creativity. The fact that structural and jurisdictional changes did not compel state court activism in Maryland suggests that other factors, such as legal norms and political culture, are involved.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
