Federal Judicial Research Articles

Federal Judicial Appointments in Canada: The Time Is Ripe for Change

Federal Judicial Appointments in Canada: The Time Is Ripe for Change

Judicial Federalilsm and Equality Guarantees in State Supreme Courts

The new judicial federalism emphasizes state court reliance on state constitutional grounds for the enhanced protection of individual rights. Commentary in the legal literature gives the impression of much state court activism in this area. However, a quantitative analysis of 2,286 equal protection cases decided by state supreme courts between 1975 and 1984 shows much lower levels of the exclusive use of state constitutions. The data also reveal significant regional variations in the nature of equal protection cases filed, the types of alleged discrimination, the use of independent and adequate state grounds, and the frequency of judicial invalidation of state action. These variations are explored in terms of political culture, the institutional features of the state judiciary, and the content of state bills of rights.

The Role of the Compensation Structure in Enhancing Judicial Quality

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Role of the Compensation Structure in Enhancing Judicial QualityPaul E. Greenberg, and James A. HaleyPaul E. Greenberg Search for more articles by this author , and James A. Haley Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Legal Studies Volume 15, Number 2Jun., 1986 Sponsored by The University of Chicago Law School Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/467820 Views: 4Total views on this site Citations: 9Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1986 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Emmanuelle Auriol, Stefanie Brilon Anti-social behavior in profit and nonprofit organizations, Journal of Public Economics 117 (Sep 2014): 149–161.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.05.006Paul Heaton and Eric Helland Judicial Expenditures and Litigation Access: Evidence from Auto Injuries, The Journal of Legal Studies 40, no.22 (Jul 2015): 295–332.https://doi.org/10.1086/658863Valentina P. Dimitrova-Grajzl, Peter Grajzl, Janez Sustersic, Katarina Zajc Judicial Incentives and Performance at Lower Courts: Evidence from Slovenian Judge-Level Data, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2011).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1930466Mariusz Jerzy Golecki Some Idealism About Realism. Judging Under Certainty and the Standardization of Adjudication in the EC Law, (Dec 2009): 181–199.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04886-9_10Scott Duke Kominers Salary Erosion and Federal Judicial Resignation, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2008).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1114432Stephen J. Choi, G. Mitu Gulati, Eric A. Posner Are Judges Overpaid?: A Skeptical Response to the Judicial Salary Debate, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2007).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1077295Sophie Harnay, Alain Marciano Judicial conformity versus dissidence: an economic analysis of judicial precedent, International Review of Law and Economics 23, no.44 (Dec 2003): 405–420.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2003.07.004Donald J. Boudreaux, A. C. Pritchard Reassessing the role of the independent judiciary in enforcing interest-group bargains, Constitutional Political Economy 5, no.11 (Dec 1994): 1–21.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02393253Thomas J. Miceli, Metin M. Coşgel Reputation and judicial decision-making, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 23, no.11 (Jan 1994): 31–51.https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(94)90095-7

Economic Ideology and the Federal Judicial Task

Economic Ideology and the Federal Judicial Task

The Adequacy Principle And Judicial Federalism

Southeastern Political ReviewVolume 13, Issue 2 p. 65-98 The Adequacy Principle And Judicial Federalism Brian M. Murphy, Brian M. MurphySearch for more papers by this author Brian M. Murphy, Brian M. MurphySearch for more papers by this author First published: September 1985 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.1985.tb00015.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume13, Issue2September 1985Pages 65-98 RelatedInformation

A Database Management System for the Federal Courts

A judicial systems laboratory has been established and several large-scale information management systems projects have been undertaken within the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C. The newness of the court application area, together with the experimental nature of the initial prototypes, required that the system building tools be as flexible and efficient as possible for effective software design and development. The size of the databases, the expected transaction volumes, and the long-term value of the court records required a data manipulation system capable of providing high performance and integrity. The resulting design criteria, the programming capabilities developed, and their use in system construction are described herein. This database programming facility has been especially designed as a technical management tool for the database administrator, while providing the applications programmer with a flexible database software interface for high productivity. Specifically, a network-type database management system using SAIL as the data manipulation host language is described. Generic data manipulation verb formats using SAIL's macro facilities and dynamic data structuring facilities allowing in-core database representations have been developed to achieve a level of flexibility not usually attained in conventional database systems.

The Political Culture of Middle-Period United States

Kermit L. Hall. The Politics of Justice : lower Federal Judicial Selection and the Second Party System, 1829-61. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press, 1979. 268 + xvii pp. Daniel Walker Howe. The Political Culture of the American Whigs. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979. 404 + vii pp. Richard B. Latner. The Presidency of Andrew Jackson: White House Politics, 1829-1837. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1979. 291 + ix pp. Harry L. Watson. Jacksonian Politics and Community Conflict: The Emergence of the Second American Party System in Cumberland County North Carolina. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981.354 + xii pp. Since the publication of Lee Benson's The Concept of Jacksonian Democ- racy more than twenty years ago, the progressive, socioeconomic inter- pretation of the Jacksonian period has been under heavy siege. A number of historians, the so-called "new political historians," following Benson's footsteps, have argued that it was ethnocultural factors such as ethnicity and religion that shaped antebellum voting patterns. Challenging the claims of the progressive historians, Benson concludes, in his study of middle-period New York, that "the stand of the major parties on socioeconomic issues had relatively little effect upon bloc voting." Instead, New Yorkers cast their ballots in response "to factors initially associated with positive and negative reference groups and subsequently with fulfillment of political roles."1 A student of Benson, Ronald Formisano, tested his mentor's hypotheses in Michigan and finds similar results. It was cultural and moral issues that divided the parties, with the Democrats appealing to the "antievangelical social groups who rejected the moral society which pietist Protestants pro- moted through Anti-masonry and then Whiggery." Formisano challenged his colleagues to confront the "brute fact that large portions of the electorate do not have meaningful beliefs, even on issues that have formed the basis of intense controversy for substantial periods of time."2

Conflicts among Circuits and Transfers within the Federal Judicial System

Conflicts among Circuits and Transfers within the Federal Judicial System

Experimenting with Justice: The Federal Judicial Center Report

An astute observer, participant, and scholar of the federal judicial system commented forty years ago that reforms have a way of not turning out according to the expectations of their architects.' That wise counsel should serve as the epigraph for an important monograph, Experimentation in the Law, a report of the Federal Judicial Center's Advisory Commitee on Experimentation in the Law.2 The drive toward experimental tests of public policy is a fairly recent enterprise. An experiment is a test comparing the consequences of some innovation with the consequences of the status quo or some alternative program. One of the most powerful ways of assuring comparability is the random assignment of subjects to differing conditions. This modern advance in research design is attributed to R. A. Fisher.' Donald T. Campbell and Julian Stanley developed approximations to the randomized experiment in the 1960s. Their ideas improved research designs by relying on the logic of the randomized model. This brought a new consciousness to empirical social science in the 1960s and 1970s. With the surge of interest in experimental social science the extension from the laboratory to the field soon followed. Experimental tests of public policy had substantial allure' and it seemed that experimentation, through the mechanism of random assignment, would alter fundamentally and beneficially the values of a free society.6

U. S. Courts of Appeals and Their Judges: Howard's "Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System"

U. S. Courts of Appeals and Their Judges: Howard's "Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System"

Experimenting with Justice: The Federal Judicial Center Report

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

U.S. Courts of Appeals and Their Judges: Howard's Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System

Expansion of federal regulation of American society has increased the responsibilities and importance of federal district and appellate courts in governing the United States. As Congress created regulatory agencies and brought more economic, social, and political activities under federal scrutiny, these federal courts became primary arenas for settling disputes over the nature and scope of permissible governmental intervention in society. The growth of these courts' role in overseeing regulatory agencies began in the period 1905-1920, accelerated greatly in the 1930s, and exploded in the 1960s and 1970s. This, of course, was in addition to the increased policy-making role the due process revolution brought to these courts. Unfortunately, however, there has been little parallel growth in scholarly interest in studying federal courts other than the Supreme Court. The first serious study of what federal courts do was Felix Frankfurter and James Landis's classic study, The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal Judicial System.' For over 50 years that work remained almost the only source of information about the operation of those courts. With the publication of J. Woodford Howard, Jr.'s, Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits, 2 scholars now have a

Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits

Journal Article Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits Get access Howard J. WoodfordJr., Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits. Princeton, N. J: Princeton University Press, 1981. xxv, 415 pp. $32.50. John W. Johnson John W. Johnson Clemson University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar American Journal of Legal History, Volume 27, Issue 1, January 1983, Pages 99–101, https://doi.org/10.2307/844915 Published: 01 January 1983

Stone v. Powell: The impact on state appellate court judges' perceptions

This study addresses the question of whether the United States Supreme Court decision of Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), has had a significant impact on the highest level state appellate courts. The study centered around a survey sent to every member of the highest appellate court hearing criminal appeals in each of the fifty states. The major finding of the research was that Stone v. Powell can be viewed along two dimensions: a narrow, substantive dimension applying the case as a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decision, or a broader, policy dimension of judicial federalism. It appears that, for the most part, state supreme courts have chosen to apply Stone v. Powell along the narrow, substantive dimension. Thus, state supreme courts have not assumed the position of equal partners with the federal courts in assuring adequate and appropriate disposition of federal claims.

Experimentation in the Law: Report of the Federal Judicial Center Advisory Committee on Experimentation in the Law. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981. Pp. vii + 134. $4.25.)

Experimentation in the Law: Report of the Federal Judicial Center Advisory Committee on Experimentation in the Law. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981. Pp. vii + 134. $4.25.)

Experimentation in the Law: Report of the Federal Judicial Center Advisory Committee on Experimentation in the Law. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981. Pp. vii + 134. $4.25.)

Experimentation in the Law: Report of the Federal Judicial Center Advisory Committee on Experimentation in the Law. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981. Pp. vii + 134. $4.25.)

The Politics of Justice: Lower Federal Judicial Selection and the Second Party System, 1829-61

Journal Article The Politics of Justice: Lower Federal Judicial Selection and the Second Party System, 1829–61 Get access Hall Kermit L., The Politics of Justice: Lower Federal Judicial Selection and the Second Party System, 1829–61. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press, 1979. xvii, 268 pp. $19.50. John R. Wunder John R. Wunder Texas Tech University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar American Journal of Legal History, Volume 26, Issue 4, October 1982, Page 379, https://doi.org/10.2307/844943 Published: 01 October 1982

The Comparative Study of State and Federal Judicial Behavior Revisited

This article tests three hypotheses related to the contention that state courts are less likely than federal courts to resolve arguable issues in favor of petitioners asserting civil liberties claims. Using data derived from prisoners' rights cases, the author demonstrates that state supreme courts have been significantly less inclined than the U.S. Courts of Appeals to support prisoners' efforts to secure judicial redress of their grievances. It is argued that the findings reported here tend to confirm the utility of non-hierarchical models of the American judicial system.

Book Notes

MULTINATIONALS TAKE OVER AUSTRALIA. By Len Fox.THE PROVISION OF ROADS A Report on the relationships among the three spheres of government inAustralia.THE BRITISH CABINET. Third edition. By John P. Mackintosh.BALDWIN THWARTS THE OPPOSITION: the British General Election of 1935. By Tom Stannage.WILL THE SOVIET UNION SURVIVE UNTIL 1984? By Andrei Amalrik. Second English Edition. Edited by Hilary Sternberg.POLITICAL EDUCATION AND DEMOCRACY. By Tom Brennan.COURTS OF APPEALS IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits. By J. Woodford Howard, Jr.CASES IN ACCOUNTABILITY: The Work of the GAO. Edited by Erasmus H. Kloman.

INNOVATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, 1969‐1981: AN OVERVIEW

ABSTRACTInnovation in judicial administration has proceeded slowly for many reasons. The attitudes of judges not‐inclined by training toward management, the tradition of Judicial independence, and the separation of powers are examined as contributing factors inhibiting judicial modernization. Federal Judicial reform has defended historically upon the leadership of a Chief Justine of the United State? willing to use the office to dramatize and promote the issues. The most recent period of dramatic change in judicial administration, from 1969‐1981, is reviewed with a focus upon the strategies for change employed by Chief Justice Warren E, Burger.