The Experts below are selected from a list of 342357 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Abhinav Chandrachud - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
wednesbury reformulated proportionality and the Supreme Court of india
Social Science Research Network, 2013Co-Authors: Abhinav ChandrachudAbstract:In a case decided in the year 2000, the Supreme Court of India held, for perhaps the first time in its history, that the proportionality doctrine could be used to test the validity of certain kinds of administrative decisions. However, in subsequent cases, in an ostensible exercise of the new proportionality doctrine, the Supreme Court of India has continued only to apply the old doctrines of judicial review with which it is most familiar, particularly the doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness. By empirically investigating a group of cases in which the “proportionality” doctrine has most commonly been used by the Supreme Court of India – public sector employment cases – this paper argues that the proportionality doctrine in India is not really what it is elsewhere. A polished version of this paper was published in the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal in 2013.
-
wednesbury reformulated proportionality and the Supreme Court of india
Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 2013Co-Authors: Abhinav ChandrachudAbstract:(2013). Wednesbury Reformulated: Proportionality and the Supreme Court of India. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal: Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 191-208.
Reginald S Sheehan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
public opinion the attitudinal model and Supreme Court decision making a micro analytic perspective
The Journal of Politics, 1996Co-Authors: William Mishler, Reginald S SheehanAbstract:Recent aggregate-level research on the United States Supreme Court suggests that shifting tides of public opinion can have important effects on Supreme Court decisions. Moreover, these effects can be both direct (i.e., unmediated by other institutions) and indirect (i.e., mediated through presidential elections and subsequent judicial appointments). This research extends this inquiry by examining the influence of public opinion on individual members of the Supreme Court during the period 1953-1992. Although the majority of justices during this period show little or no evidence of public opinion effects, a significant minority of justices show substantial effects. As predicted by social psychological theories, the impact of public opinion is greatest among moderate justices who are likely to hold critical swing positions on the Court. The effects of public opinion are in addition to significant agenda effects and suggest important refinements in the standard attitudinal model of judicial decision making.
Patrick C Wohlfarth - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how public opinion constrains the u s Supreme Court
American Journal of Political Science, 2011Co-Authors: Christopher J Casillas, Peter K Enns, Patrick C WohlfarthAbstract:Although scholars increasingly acknowledge a contemporaneous relationship between public opinion and Supreme Court decisions, debate continues as to why this relationship exists. Does public opinion directly influence decisions or do justices simply respond to the same social forces that simultaneously shape the public mood? To answer this question, we first develop a strategy to control for the justices' attitudinal change that stems from the social forces that influence public opinion. We then propose a theoretical argument that predicts strategic justices should be mindful of public opinion even in cases when the public is unlikely to be aware of the Court's activities. The results suggest that the influence of public opinion on Supreme Court decisions is real, substantively important, and most pronounced in nonsalient cases.
Adam Feldman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
who wins in the Supreme Court an examination of attorney and law firm influence
Marquette Law Review, 2016Co-Authors: Adam FeldmanAbstract:Who are the most successful attorneys in the Supreme Court? A novel way to answer this question is by looking at attorneys’ relative influence on the course of the law. This article performs macro and micro-level analyses of the most successful Supreme Court litigators by examining the amount of language shared between nearly 9,500 Supreme Court merits briefs and their respective Supreme Court opinions from 1946 through 2013. The article also includes analyses of the most successful law firms according to the same metric. Who Wins in the Supreme Court? An Examination of Attorney and Law Firm Influence
-
who wins in the Supreme Court an examination of attorney and law firm influence
Social Science Research Network, 2015Co-Authors: Adam FeldmanAbstract:Who are the most successful attorneys in the Supreme Court? A novel way to answer this question is by looking at attorneys' relative influence on the course of the law. This article performs macro and micro-level analyses of the most successful Supreme Court litigators by examining the amount of language shared between nearly 9,500 Supreme Court merits briefs and their respective Supreme Court opinions from 1946 through 2013. The article also includes analyses of the most successful law firms according to the same metric.
William Mishler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
public opinion the attitudinal model and Supreme Court decision making a micro analytic perspective
The Journal of Politics, 1996Co-Authors: William Mishler, Reginald S SheehanAbstract:Recent aggregate-level research on the United States Supreme Court suggests that shifting tides of public opinion can have important effects on Supreme Court decisions. Moreover, these effects can be both direct (i.e., unmediated by other institutions) and indirect (i.e., mediated through presidential elections and subsequent judicial appointments). This research extends this inquiry by examining the influence of public opinion on individual members of the Supreme Court during the period 1953-1992. Although the majority of justices during this period show little or no evidence of public opinion effects, a significant minority of justices show substantial effects. As predicted by social psychological theories, the impact of public opinion is greatest among moderate justices who are likely to hold critical swing positions on the Court. The effects of public opinion are in addition to significant agenda effects and suggest important refinements in the standard attitudinal model of judicial decision making.