Judicial Demand—Screening and Decisions on the Merits

Author:

Baum Lawrence1

Affiliation:

1. Ohio State University

Abstract

The relationship between policy makers' demand-screening decisions and their responses to demands that have been given full consideration can be examined in courts which possess discretionary jurisdiction. Some empirical evidence on these courts suggests that their case-screening decisions and decisions on the merits are closely linked, based on the same criteria-the merits of lower-court decisions—applied in the same way. This conception is tested for the California Supreme Court for 1970-1974 through an examina tion of the relationship between votes to accept cases and votes to reverse lower-court decisions in the same cases. Only a weak relationship is found. The weakness of this relationship is explained by the role of "non-merits" criteria for screening decisions and by the fluidity of justices' assessments of the merits.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Reference16 articles.

1. Policy Goals in Judicial Gatekeeping: A Proximity Model of Discretionary Jurisdiction

2. California Reporter (1973) " Memorial proceedings for the Honorable Raymond E. Peters." Volume 108 (special section): 5-12.

Cited by 15 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3