Author's Keywords: Srategic, US Supreme Court review, US Circuit Courts of Appeals	Convention Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote! Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: The Midwest Political Science Association URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~mpsa/
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p139345_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Barnes, Jennifer. and Songer, Donald. "Decision Making on the Courts of Appeals: Do Judges Have the Knowledge Assumed by Advocates of Strategic Models?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois, Apr 20, 2006 <Not Available>. 2008-12-12 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p139345_index.html>

Barnes, J. L. and Songer, D. R. , 2006-04-20 "Decision Making on the Courts of Appeals: Do Judges Have the Knowledge Assumed by Advocates of Strategic Models?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois Online <PDF>. 2008-12-12 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p139345_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Abstract: An analysis of US Courts of Appeals decision making explores whether US Courts of Appeals judges can predict the likelihood of review by the US Supreme Court. Some scholars have argued that US Courts of Appeals judges can anticipate when the US Supreme Court will review a case and will often act strategically by modifying their decision in anticipation of the probable Supreme Court response. One key assumption of most strategic models is that judges have perfect information. The implication of this assumption is that judges can anticipate which cases will be reviewed and which decisions will be overturned. Our strategy for testing this assumption is two-prong. We rely on interviews with US Courts of Appeals judges and we model empirically the factors associated with Supreme Court review utilizing data from the Appeals Court Data Base from 1986-1988. The results of our interview and empirical analyses provide support for our hypotheses relating to the case characteristics that substantially affect the chances that a case will be reviewed. However, our results also indicate that the likelihood of review in the most positive cases is still marginal at best. Therefore, our findings do cast doubt on the use of strategic theories when explaining judicial behavior and external constraints. Our research suggests that it is highly irrational in most cases for appeals court judges to concern themselves with Court review.

Applying Attitudinal Models to Federal Courts of Appeals: Appellate Review of Trial Judges' Decisions to Admit Scientific Expert Testimony

Role Orientations of Judges in Latin America: A Pilot Project Survey of Judges in the Supreme Court of Justice, Court of Appeal, and Courts of First Instance in Uruguay