Conflict with Supreme Court Precedent and the Granting of Plenary Review

S. Sidney Ulmer

21 citations0/0 files storedThe Journal of Politics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Judicial and Constitutional Studies Legal processes and jurisprudence American Constitutional Law and Politics

Abstract

This paper presents preliminary findings from a study designed to fill a gap in political scientists' knowledge about the extent to which the Supreme Court grants or denies plenary review when conflict with one or more of its precedents is claimed. The findings are that the presence of conflict promoted the granting of review between 1961 and 1976, including the Warren Court terms (1961-68), even in the face of controls for litigant status, civil liberty issues, and constitutional issues, but that it was a poorer predictor during the Burger Court terms (1969-76).

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

References

1981Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court 1980The Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration 1977Policy Goals in Judicial Gatekeeping: A Proximity Model of Discretionary Jurisdiction 1979Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari 1979The New Certiorari Game 1981Courts, law, and judicial processes

Cited by

1993Alternative Models of Appeal Mobilization in Judicial Hierarchies

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.