Separate opinion writing on the United States Courts of Appeals

Virginia A. Hettinger, Stefanie Lindquist, Wendy L. Martinek

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this article, we set ourselves to the task of identifying the determinants of separate opinion writing on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Utilizing a new institutional theoretical framework, we evaluate a series of hypotheses concerning the connection between separate opinion writing behavior and attitudinal, institutional, and legal factors. Within this broad theoretical framework, we are particularly sensitive to the manner in which judges may advance certain goals through authorship of separate opinions. We find that judges' policy preferences, case salience, and collegiality norms all affect the likelihood that a judge will write a separate opinion. Our research provides additional support for integrated models of judicial decision-making that take into account institutional, attitudinal, and legal influences on judicial behavior.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)215-250
Number of pages36
JournalAmerican Politics Research
Volume31
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

appeal
legal factors
institutional factors
determinants
decision making

Keywords

  • Courts of Appeals
  • Judicial decision making
  • Opinion writing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Separate opinion writing on the United States Courts of Appeals. / Hettinger, Virginia A.; Lindquist, Stefanie; Martinek, Wendy L.

In: American Politics Research, Vol. 31, No. 3, 05.2003, p. 215-250.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Hettinger, Virginia A. ; Lindquist, Stefanie ; Martinek, Wendy L. / Separate opinion writing on the United States Courts of Appeals. In: American Politics Research. 2003 ; Vol. 31, No. 3. pp. 215-250.
@article{2571a0b53a934197ac065e02166d1e98,
title = "Separate opinion writing on the United States Courts of Appeals",
abstract = "In this article, we set ourselves to the task of identifying the determinants of separate opinion writing on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Utilizing a new institutional theoretical framework, we evaluate a series of hypotheses concerning the connection between separate opinion writing behavior and attitudinal, institutional, and legal factors. Within this broad theoretical framework, we are particularly sensitive to the manner in which judges may advance certain goals through authorship of separate opinions. We find that judges' policy preferences, case salience, and collegiality norms all affect the likelihood that a judge will write a separate opinion. Our research provides additional support for integrated models of judicial decision-making that take into account institutional, attitudinal, and legal influences on judicial behavior.",
keywords = "Courts of Appeals, Judicial decision making, Opinion writing",
author = "Hettinger, {Virginia A.} and Stefanie Lindquist and Martinek, {Wendy L.}",
year = "2003",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1177/1532673X03251196",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "215--250",
journal = "American Politics Research",
issn = "1532-673X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Separate opinion writing on the United States Courts of Appeals

AU - Hettinger, Virginia A.

AU - Lindquist, Stefanie

AU - Martinek, Wendy L.

PY - 2003/5

Y1 - 2003/5

N2 - In this article, we set ourselves to the task of identifying the determinants of separate opinion writing on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Utilizing a new institutional theoretical framework, we evaluate a series of hypotheses concerning the connection between separate opinion writing behavior and attitudinal, institutional, and legal factors. Within this broad theoretical framework, we are particularly sensitive to the manner in which judges may advance certain goals through authorship of separate opinions. We find that judges' policy preferences, case salience, and collegiality norms all affect the likelihood that a judge will write a separate opinion. Our research provides additional support for integrated models of judicial decision-making that take into account institutional, attitudinal, and legal influences on judicial behavior.

AB - In this article, we set ourselves to the task of identifying the determinants of separate opinion writing on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Utilizing a new institutional theoretical framework, we evaluate a series of hypotheses concerning the connection between separate opinion writing behavior and attitudinal, institutional, and legal factors. Within this broad theoretical framework, we are particularly sensitive to the manner in which judges may advance certain goals through authorship of separate opinions. We find that judges' policy preferences, case salience, and collegiality norms all affect the likelihood that a judge will write a separate opinion. Our research provides additional support for integrated models of judicial decision-making that take into account institutional, attitudinal, and legal influences on judicial behavior.

KW - Courts of Appeals

KW - Judicial decision making

KW - Opinion writing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=21144436204&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=21144436204&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1532673X03251196

DO - 10.1177/1532673X03251196

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:21144436204

VL - 31

SP - 215

EP - 250

JO - American Politics Research

JF - American Politics Research

SN - 1532-673X

IS - 3

ER -