IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/v29y2000i2p721-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Justices' Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Lim, Youngsik

Abstract

The intrinsic problem in empirically analyzing Supreme Court justices' decisionmaking is that cases before the Court are not necessarily independent of the justices. When a justice has taken part in deciding a precedent of a current case, her present decision should be affected by her past decision. This effect, the most common feature under the common-law system, would impose a difficulty in doing empirical research about judicial decisionmaking. Thus, without controlling for this path-dependent effect, any test cannot help but be incomplete. Focusing on the votes of justices categorized by ideological direction, in this paper I develop a model that explicitly considers individual justices' voting in the precedents. Using about 600 relations of Supreme Court cases between a later decision and a precedent, I quantify the effects of institutional and individual stare decisis and, furthermore, decompose various factors affecting individual justice's decisionmaking. Copyright 2000 by the University of Chicago.

Suggested Citation

  • Lim, Youngsik, 2000. "An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Justices' Decision Making," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 721-752, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:29:y:2000:i:2:p:721-52
    DOI: 10.1086/468091
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/468091
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/468091?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:29:y:2000:i:2:p:721-52. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.