Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] S. Ulmer,et al. The Decision to Grant or Deny Certiorari: Further Consideration of Cue Theory , 1972 .
[2] A. Bentley,et al. The Process Of Government , 1908 .
[3] M. Galanter,et al. Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change , 1974, Discussions in Dispute Resolution.
[4] L. Baum. Policy Goals in Judicial Gatekeeping: A Proximity Model of Discretionary Jurisdiction , 1977 .
[5] D. Songer. Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari , 1979, The Journal of Politics.
[6] S. Ulmer. Conflict with Supreme Court Precedent and the Granting of Plenary Review , 1983, Journal of Politics.
[7] J. W. Peltason. Federal courts in the political process , 1955 .
[8] R. Scigliano,et al. The Supreme Court and the Presidency , 1971 .
[9] G. Schubert,et al. Judicial Decision-Making. , 1964 .
[10] W. Murphy. Elements of judicial strategy , 1965 .
[11] J. Segal. Amicus Curiae Briefs By the Solicitor General During the Warren and Burger Courts: a Research Note , 1988 .
[12] Samuel Krislov. The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy , 1963 .
[13] David W. Rohde. Policy Goals, Strategic, Choice and Majority Opinion Assignments in the U. S. Supreme Court , 1972 .
[14] S. Brenner. The New Certiorari Game , 1979, The Journal of Politics.
[15] P. Schmidt,et al. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1984 .
[16] S. Ulmer. The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable , 1984, American Political Science Review.
[17] Lincoln Caplan. The tenth justice , 1987 .
[18] J. Palmer. An econometric analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's certiorari decisions , 1982 .
[19] L. J. Barker. Third Parties in Litigation: A Systemic View of the Judicial Function , 1967, The Journal of Politics.
[20] Karen G. O'Connor,et al. “Friends as Foes: The Amicus Curiae Participation and Effectiveness of the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans for Effective Law Enforcement in Criminal Cases, 1969–1982”* , 1987 .
[21] H. Levin,et al. Supreme Court Practice , 2007 .
[22] B. Ennis. Effective Amicus Briefs , 1984 .
[23] S. Baker. A Practical Guide to Certiorari , 1984 .
[24] L. Epstein,et al. Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation: An Appraisal of Hakman's "Folklore" , 1981 .
[25] Nathan Hakman. Lobbying the Supreme Court—An Appraisal of "Political Science Folklore" , 1966 .
[26] Gregory A. Caldeira. The United States Supreme Court and Criminal Cases, 1935–1976: Alternative Models of Agenda Building , 1981, British Journal of Political Science.
[27] Jeffrey A. Segal,et al. Supreme Court Decision Making , 1975 .
[28] K. L. Schlozman,et al. Organized interests and American democracy , 1986 .
[29] Peter Linzer. The Meaning of Certiorari Denials , 1979 .
[30] Jack L. Walker. The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America , 1983, American Political Science Review.
[31] G. Maddala. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics: Introduction , 1983 .
[32] Stuart H. Teger,et al. The Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration , 1980, The Journal of Politics.
[33] R. Coulam,et al. Governing Through Courts , 1981 .
[34] D. Provine. Case selection in the United States Supreme Court , 1980 .
[35] Charles A. Johnson,et al. Certiorari Decisions by the Warren & Burger Courts: Is Cue Theory Time Bound? , 1982, Polity.
[36] E. Muller,et al. Frontiers of judicial research , 1969 .
[37] L. Epstein,et al. The Rise of Conservative Interest Group Litigation , 1983, The Journal of Politics.