IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v91y2010i1p209-227.html

Does Seniority Matter? The Conditional Influence of State Methods of Judicial Retention

Author

Listed:
  • Brent D. Boyea

Abstract

Objective. Capitalizing on attention directed to judicial agreement and the associated consequences of judicial elections, this article conducts an examination of the effects of seniority and state methods of judicial retention on decisions by state supreme court justices to dissent. Methods. Using data drawn from the State Supreme Court Data Archive, this research analyzes decisions by individual justices to dissent in 33,582 tort cases from 1995 to 1998. GEE logistic analysis with cases as the clustering unit is the estimation procedure. Results. While the seniority of justices is positively connected to dissent, the findings illustrate that seniority's effect is nuanced and conditioned by a state's method of judicial retention. The impact of a justice's seniority relative to his or her colleagues is most powerful in appointive courts where justices serve without fear of electoral retaliation. Alternatively, within elective courts, justices respond to elections by pursuing a consensual approach regardless of their seniority. Conclusion. The dissent characteristics of justices in state supreme courts are intricately tied to the length of careers and the methods by which states keep justices in office.

Suggested Citation

  • Brent D. Boyea, 2010. "Does Seniority Matter? The Conditional Influence of State Methods of Judicial Retention," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(1), pages 209-227, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:91:y:2010:i:1:p:209-227
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00689.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00689.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00689.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Virginia A. Hettinger & Stefanie A. Lindquist & Wendy L. Martinek, 2003. "Acclimation Effects and Separate Opinion Writing in the U.S. Courts of Appeals," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 84(4), pages 792-810, December.
    2. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, 1984. "The Selection of Disputes for Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-56, January.
    3. repec:cup:apsrev:v:48:y:1954:i:03:p:787-792_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Kenneth L. Manning & Bruce A. Carroll & Robert A. Carp, 2004. "Does Age Matter? Judicial Decision Making in Age Discrimination Cases," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 85(1), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Hall, Melinda Gann, 2001. "State Supreme Courts in American Democracy: Probing the Myths of Judicial Reform," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(2), pages 315-330, June.
    6. Paul Rubin, 2005. "Public choice and tort reform," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 223-236, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Felipe de Mendonça Lopes, 2019. "Dissent Aversion and Sequential Voting in the Brazilian Supreme Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 933-954, December.
    2. Alma Cohen & Alon Klement & Zvika Neeman, 2015. "Judicial Decision Making: A Dynamic Reputation Approach," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 133-159.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pyle, William, 2006. "Resolutions, recoveries and relationships: The evolution of payment disputes in Central and Eastern Europe," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 317-337, June.
    2. Mocetti, Sauro & Pesenti, Ottavia & Roma, Giacomo, 2026. "The effects of the reform of the judicial map on the functioning of civil justice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).
    3. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci & Bruno Deffains, 2007. "Uncertainty of Law and the Legal Process," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(4), pages 627-656, December.
    4. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation:Causal Evidence from the Courts," IIR Working Paper 13-16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    5. Benito Arruñada, 2023. "La protección administrativa de las relaciones financieras," Fedea Economy Notes 2023-11, FEDEA.
    6. Fotis, Panagiotis & Tselekounis, Markos, 2020. "Optimal Reduction of Cartel Fines induced by the Settlement Procedure," MPRA Paper 99154, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Zhang, Pengfei & Li, Ji, 2025. "Notice-and-takedown as dispute resolution: An empirical analysis of GitHub notices," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    8. Robert M. Feinberg & Kara M. Reynolds, 2024. "State-Level Antitrust Enforcement: Revisiting the Determinants," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 65(3), pages 793-806, November.
    9. Francesco Drago & Roberto Galbiati & Francesco Sobbrio, 2020. "The Political Cost of Being Soft on Crime: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(6), pages 3305-3336.
    10. Malcolm Coate & Shawn Ulrick, 2009. "Do Court Decisions Drive the Federal Trade Commission’s Enforcement Policy on Merger Settlements?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 34(2), pages 99-114, March.
    11. Eric, Van den Steen, 2002. "Skill or Luck? Biases of Rational Agents," Working papers 4255-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    12. Linda R. Cohen & Jun Ishii, 2005. "Competition, Innovation and Racing for Priority at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office," Working Papers 050604, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    13. L. A. Franzoni, 2016. "Optimal liability design under risk and ambiguity," Working Papers wp1048, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    14. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    15. Frederick Schauer & Richard Zeckhauser, 2010. "The Trouble with Cases," NBER Chapters, in: Regulation vs. Litigation: Perspectives from Economics and Law, pages 45-70, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Eduardo Gandelman & Nestor Gandelman & Julie Rothschild, 2008. "Diferencias entre los sexos en los procedimientos judiciales: Pruebas de campo de causas de vivienda en Uruguay," Research Department Publications 3251, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    17. Jennifer K. Robbennolt & Jessica Bregant & Verity Winship, 2023. "Settlement schemas: How laypeople understand civil settlement," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 488-533, September.
    18. Jef De Mot & Thomas J. Miceli, 2014. "Comparing All-Or-Nothing and Proportionate Damages: A Rent Seeking Approach," Working papers 2014-30, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    19. Evan Osborne, 2010. "Why Do Some Kinds of Stars Get the Calls?," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 11(2), pages 203-213, April.
    20. Friehe Tim & Pham Cat Lam, 2025. "The Direct Incidence of Product Liability on Wages," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 21(1), pages 77-90.

    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:bla:socsci:v:91:y:2010:i:1:p:209-227. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.