Judicial Review in State Supreme Courts: A Comparative Study. By Laura Langer. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. 192p. $62.50 cloth, $20.95 paper.

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 826-827
Author(s):  
Donald R. Songer
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
State University ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Almost All

Interest in strategic approaches to an understanding of judicial decision making, including the implications of the separation of powers (SOP), has grown dramatically in recent years. Unfortunately, almost all the research on these SOP interactions has been limited to those involving the U.S. Supreme Court. Laura Langer's book provides a refreshing alternative to the exclusive Supreme Court focus by examining the significance of separation of powers concerns for the exercise of judicial review by state supreme courts.

scholarly journals Analyzing the Link between Dollars and Decisions: A Multi-State Study of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decision Making

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 65
Author(s):  
Ryan J. Rebe
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Campaign Contributions ◽  
Causal Connection ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
State Study ◽  
Previous Election

<p>This article examines the causal connection between attorney contributions and judicial decisions in elective states.  The results show that contributions are a significant predictor of appellant success in state supreme courts when judges receive contributions from the attorneys for the appellant.  However, this relationship is contingent on the competitiveness of the judicial seat.  The analysis shows that judges who received a low percentage of the vote in the previous election are more likely to vote with contributors than judges who received a high percentage.  This evidence bolsters the argument that contributions directly affect decision making when judges feel electoral pressure.  The results also support the proposition that elected judges are more likely to vote with donors in states with nonpartisan ballots.  While the contribution amounts are higher in partisan states, the judges in the nonpartisan sample are more closely aligned with their contributors when it comes to decision making. </p>

scholarly journals Analyzing the Link between Dollars and Decisions: A Multi-State Study of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decision Making

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-91
Author(s):  
Ryan J. Rebe
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Campaign Contributions ◽  
Causal Connection ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
State Study ◽  
Previous Election

This article examines the causal connection between attorney contributions and judicial decisions in elective states.  The results show that contributions are a significant predictor of appellant success in state supreme courts when judges receive contributions from the attorneys for the appellant.  However, this relationship is contingent on the competitiveness of the judicial seat.  The analysis shows that judges who received a low percentage of the vote in the previous election are more likely to vote with contributors than judges who received a high percentage.  This evidence bolsters the argument that contributions directly affect decision making when judges feel electoral pressure.  The results also support the proposition that elected judges are more likely to vote with donors in states with nonpartisan ballots.  While the contribution amounts are higher in partisan states, the judges in the nonpartisan sample are more closely aligned with their contributors when it comes to decision making. 

scholarly journals Deliberação Interna e Legitimação das Cortes Supremas

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Meneses Lorenzetto ◽  
Letticia De Pauli Schaitza
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Legislative Power ◽  
Decision Making Models

DELIBERAÇÃO INTERNA E LEGITIMAÇÃO DAS CORTES SUPREMAS  INTERNAL DELIBERATION AND SUPREME COURTS’ LEGITIMACY   Bruno Meneses Lorenzetto*Letticia de Pauli Schaitza**  RESUMO: O artigo parte da superação da concepção estática de separação de poderes e critica os argumentos normalmente utilizados para justificar a legitimidade das Cortes Supremas para rever atos do Poder Legislativo por ignorarem que os juízes não decidem em um vácuo institucional e que a interação com seus pares influencia na tomada da decisão. Dessa forma, através da exposição dos modelos legal, atitudinal e estratégico, explicativos da tomada de decisão judicial, apresenta as Cortes não apenas como interlocutoras externas, mas sobretudo como tribunais colegiados deliberativos, a fim de enfatizar a importância da deliberação colegiada para a legitimidade da jurisdição constitucional e a qualidade da sua performance. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Legitimação Jurisdicional. Deliberação. Cortes Supremas. ABSTRACT: The article assumes the overcoming of the static conception of the separation of powers and criticizes the arguments normally used to justify the legitimacy of the Supreme Courts to review acts of the Legislative Power to the extand that they ignore that the judges do not decide in an institutional vacuum and that the interaction with their peers influences in the decision making process. Thus, through the exposition of legal, attitudinal and strategic judicial decision-making models, it presents the Courts not only as external interlocutors, but above all as collegiate deliberative tribunals, in order to emphasize the importance of collegial deliberation to constitutional jurisdiction legitimacy and the quality of its performance. KEYWORDS: Jurisdictional Legitimacy. Deliberation. Supreme Courts.  SUMÁRIO: Introdução. 1 A Nova Configuração do Princípio da Separação dos Poderes e a Legitimação da Corte Constitucional. 2 Cortes Supremas como “Deliberadores Internos”: a Deliberação em um Tribunal Colegiado. Considerações Finais. Referências. _________________________* Doutor em Direito pela Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR). Professor de Direito da Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR). Coordenador do Programa de Mestrado em Direito e Professor da Graduação do Centro Universitário Autônomo do Brasil (UniBrasil), Paraná. Visiting Scholar na Columbia Law University, Estados Unidos.** Mestranda em Direito das Relações Sociais pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR). Integrante do Núcleo de Pesquisa em Direito Processual Civil Comparado da Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR).    

Malpractice & Negligence: State Supreme Courts Limit Therapists’ Duties to Third Parties

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-205
Author(s):  
Megan Cleary
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Abuse ◽  
Child Sexual Abuse ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
New Hampshire ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Recovered Memories ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Repressed Memory ◽  
University Of Colorado

In recent years, the law in the area of recovered memories in child sexual abuse cases has developed rapidly. See J.K. Murray, “Repression, Memory & Suggestibility: A Call for Limitations on the Admissibility of Repressed Memory Testimony in Abuse Trials,” University of Colorado Law Review, 66 (1995): 477-522, at 479. Three cases have defined the scope of liability to third parties. The cases, decided within six months of each other, all involved lawsuits by third parties against therapists, based on treatment in which the patients recovered memories of sexual abuse. The New Hampshire Supreme Court, in Hungerford v. Jones, 722 A.2d 478 (N.H. 1998), allowed such a claim to survive, while the supreme courts in Iowa, in J.A.H. v. Wadle & Associates, 589 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 1999), and California, in Eear v. Sills, 82 Cal. Rptr. 281 (1991), rejected lawsuits brought by nonpatients for professional liability.

Introduction The Birth and Growth of Judicial Review: 1607–2020

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Charismatic Leadership ◽  
The United States ◽  
Boundary Line ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Third

This introductory chapter discusses how judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation has usually emerged historically for a combination of four reasons. First, judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation is a response to a nation’s need for an umpire to resolve federalism or separation of powers boundary line disputes. The second main cause of the origins and growth of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation is what can be called the rights from wrongs hypothesis; judicial review very often emerges as a response to an abominable deprivation of human rights. The third major cause is the out-and-out borrowing of the institution of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation from either the United States’ model; the German Civil Law model; and, most recently, from the Canadian Second Look judicial review constitutional model. The fourth major cause is the existence of a system of checks and balances, which gives Supreme Courts and Constitutional Courts political space to grow in. Revolutionary charismatic constitutionalism can also lead to the growth of judicial review as Professor Bruce Ackerman has explained in an important new book, REVOLUTIONARY CONSTITUTIONS: CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP AND THE RULE OF LAW (2019).

scholarly journals Internalizing Contestation in Process-Based Judicial Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 1167-1181
Author(s):  
Laura M. Henderson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Constitutional Theory ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Constituent Power ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
European Stability Mechanism

AbstractThe cases challenging the European Stability Mechanism in Eurozone creditor states show the concern courts have with protecting and promoting democratic contestation. This Article shows how John Hart Ely’s theory of process-based review provides the theoretical basis for understanding how attention to democratic contestation contributes to the legitimacy of courts reviewing legislation against constitutional norms. By focusing on promoting democratic procedures, Ely argues that courts can avoid substantive decisions that are best left to the legislature. Yet, as my discussion of the constitutional theory of constituent and constituted powers shows, no form of constituted power can avoid some exercise of constituent power. In other words, even a process-based approach cannot avoid substantive judgments. The legitimacy of these decisions depends on the availability of avenues for contestation in the judicial decision-making process itself.

Supreme Court Elections: How Much They Have Changed, Why They Changed, and What Difference It Makes

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (03) ◽  
pp. 900-923 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Baum
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
The United States ◽  
Business Community ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Electoral Campaigns ◽  
State Supreme Court ◽  
Selection Systems

This essay draws on four recent studies of elections to state supreme courts in the United States to probe widely perceived changes in the scale and content of electoral campaigns for seats on state supreme courts. 1 Evidence from these studies and other sources indicates that changes have indeed occurred, though they are more limited than most commentaries suggest. These changes stem most directly from trends in state supreme court policy that have attracted interest-group activity, especially from the business community. Like their extent, the effects of change in supreme court campaigns have been meaningful although exaggerated by many observers. What we have learned about changes in supreme court elections has implications for choices among selection systems, but those implications are mixed and complex.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document