The Intergroup Foundations of Policy Influence

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 729-742 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael K. Hinkle ◽  
Michael J. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Preference Aggregation ◽  
Policy Influence ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Professional Characteristics ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
Federal Circuit ◽  
Group Memberships ◽  
Circuit Courts ◽  
Ingroup Favoritism

Most decisions about policy adoption require preference aggregation, which makes it difficult to determine how and when an individual can influence policy change. Examining how frequently a judge is cited offers insight into this question. Drawing upon the psychological concept of social identity, we suggest that shared group memberships can account for differences in policy influence. We investigate this possibility using the demographic and professional group memberships of federal circuit court judges and an original dataset of citations among all published search and seizure cases from federal circuit courts from 1990 to 2010. The results indicate that shared professional characteristics do tend to lead to ingroup favoritism in citation decisions while only partial evidence of such a pattern emerges for demographic group memberships. There is evidence of ingroup favoritism among female and minority judges but none for male or white judges. Overall, judges appear to generally have greater influence on judges with shared characteristics. The findings have vital implications for our understanding of the diversification of policy-making institutions.

scholarly journals Dispute Settlement Practices through the Religious Court’s Mobile Court (Sidang Keliling)

FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 287
Author(s):  
Hazar Kusmayanti ◽  
Sherly Ayuna Puteri
Keyword(s):  
Control System ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
To Come ◽  
Circuit Courts ◽  
Religious Courts

This research is attempted to analyze the practices of mobile court and compare it with others. Based on the results of the study, the conclusions that can be obtained are that the implementation of the circuit court conducted at the Tasikmalaya District Religious Court has fulfilled several principles of civil procedural law, namely fast, simple and low cost. Among them when people who experience obstacles to come to the court office for reasons of distance, transportation and costs of the court come directly to the location, the bureaucracy is not complicated meaning that the implementation of the trial must be completed no later than 4 times the hearing, and the existence of an effective control system and various elements. Obstacles in the conduct of circuit courts include no standard guidelines for the holding of circuit courts, not all cases registered by residents are resolved in circuit courts, limited budgets, cases that have not been heard are all without prodeo, facilities and infrastructure, and not all religious courts hold circuit courts.

Can a Casualty Loss Be Deducted in the Absence of Physical Damage?

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-74
Author(s):  
Dan L. Schisler ◽  
Andrew M. Wasilick
Keyword(s):  
Physical Damage ◽  
Permanent Reduction ◽  
Federal Circuit ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Circuit Courts ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT When a casualty event (storm, fire, landslide, etc.) does not cause actual physical damage, can a casualty loss deduction be taken by a taxpayer for a permanent reduction in value? There are conflicting opinions by two federal circuit courts, and the definition of “permanent” is still largely undefined. The relevance of this issue is of increased importance with the numerous recent major casualties affecting the U.S. mainland and territories. The 9th Circuit has adamantly held that actual physical damage must occur to have a deductible casualty loss, whereas the 11th Circuit has held that a permanent decrease in value can qualify as a deductible casualty loss even with little or no actual physical damage to the property.

Courtroom Proceedings in U.S. Federal Courts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy R. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Open Court ◽  
Federal Circuit ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Circuit Courts ◽  
The U.S

This article discusses courtroom proceedings in U.S. federal courts. It begins by examining how federal district courts conduct trials. To make clear how these proceedings run it compares what really happens in most trials compared to how Hollywood portrays trials. In addition, it considers several key rights associated with trial proceedings. From there, it considers how federal circuit courts conduct business in open court. A key aspect of this section is how circuit proceedings differ across the country because each circuit has different rules governing arguments. Finally, it assesses the oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court as well as how these proceedings may affect the decisions justices make. In each section it provides a descriptive overview of the processes and then discusses current research and direction for future analyses.

scholarly journals Of Whites and men: How gender and race impact authorship of published and unpublished opinions in the US courts of appeals

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 205316801876286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Tillman ◽  
Rachael K. Hinkle
Keyword(s):  
Demographic Characteristics ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
Disadvantaged Groups ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Empirical Tests ◽  
Circuit Courts

While authorship assignment has been studied extensively in the US Supreme Court, relatively little is known about such decisions in the intermediate federal courts. Moreover, what we know about circuit courts relates only to published opinions (those which constitute precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis and, thus, influence policy). Little is known about authorship of less influential unpublished opinions. Distinguishing between the costs, benefits, and risks inherent in authoring published versus unpublished opinions, we develop and test theoretical expectations about how demographic characteristics of opinion assignors and assignees influence authorship across opinion type. We conduct empirical tests using an exhaustive original dataset containing all authored dispositive circuit panel opinions issued in 2012. The results reveal that White and male judges are more likely to assign White and male judges to write published opinions and less likely to assign them to write unpublished opinions. The substantive sizes of the discrepancies are somewhat modest, but our results indicate that judges from historically disadvantaged groups have fewer opportunities to shape policy and they shoulder a disproportionately larger share of the routine chore of resolving individual cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document