Home  About us  Contact
 

State Supreme Courts (state + supreme_court)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences80%

Selected Abstracts

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST AWARD FOR JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE ADDRESS

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Issue 2 2009
Hon. Jonathan Lippman
The William H. Rehnquist Award is one of the most celebrated judicial honors in the country. It is given each year to a state court judge who demonstrates the "highest level of judicial excellence, integrity, fairness, and professional ethics." The 2008 recipient, Jonathan Lippman, was recently appointed and confirmed as Chief Judge of the State of New York. Chief Judge Lippman was previously the Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division of the First Judicial Department of the New York State Supreme Court. He was appointed New York's Chief Administrative Judge by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and served from January 1996 to May 2007 and was responsible for the operation of a court system with a $2.4 billion budget, 1300 state-paid judges, 2300 town and village judges, and 16,000 nonjudicial personnel. Among his numerous professional activities, Chief Judge Lippman served as president of the Conference of State Court Administrators from 2005 to 2006 and was the vice-chair of the National Center for State Courts from 2005 to 2006, where he was a member of the Board of Directors from 2003 to 2007. During his tenure, Chief Judge Lippman has been the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions, including the 2006 Fund For Modern Courts Cyrus R. Vance Tribute for Vision, Integrity and Dedication to the Fair Administration of Justice Personified by Cyrus R. Vance (November 27, 2006); the New York County Lawyers' Association Conspicuous Service Award in Recognition of Many Years of Outstanding Public Service (September 28, 2006); and the Award for Excellence in Public Service of the New York State Bar Association's Committee on Attorneys in Public Service (January 24, 2006). Chief Judge Lippman received a Bachelor of Arts in Government and International Relations from New York University, Washington Square College, where he graduated cum laude in 1965. He also received his J.D. from New York University in 1968. Below is the speech he delivered after accepting the William H. Rehnquist Award from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts. [source]

The Preemptive Power of State Supreme Courts: Adoption of Abortion and Death Penalty Legislation

POLICY STUDIES JOURNAL, Issue 3 2005
Laura Langer
We offer a theory about public policy adoption that depicts a game between state supreme courts and state policymakers. We hypothesize that court ideological hostility or friendliness operates to discourage or encourage policy enactment, with the likelihood of subsequent court intervention magnifying the relationship. To test the argument we examine the influence of court ideology on the enactment of state abortion and death penalty laws since the 1970s. Empirical analyses provide strong support for our theory, indicating that court ideological hostility or friendliness significantly influenced state abortion and death penalty policy enactments. In addition, the likelihood of court intervention conditioned this relationship, with the most pronounced effect occurring where subsequent court review was mandatory. The findings reveal courts exert important preemptive influence on law without hearing a case. This facet of judicial influence expands the traditional view of actors involved in the policymaking process. [source]

Early Twentieth-Century Racial Discrimination Cases in State Supreme Courts

POLITICS & POLICY, Issue 6 2009
FRANCINE S. ROMERO
An aspect of civil rights litigation receiving scant scholarly attention is the response of state supreme courts to racial discrimination claims in the early twentieth century. While scholarship on general social context suggests claims would find more support in non-southern courts and in the later years of the period, this has not been systematically investigated. Furthermore, while the literature on the U.S. Supreme Court establishes variance patterns by discrimination type, they cannot necessarily be extrapolated to state outcomes. I show that since the predictive utility of frameworks "borrowed" from other studies is dubious in this context, these state cases demand their own unique investigation and understanding. The assessment of two key clusters of cases offered here suggests distinct patterns in southern jury discrimination and northern public accommodations decisions. In the former, claims were routinely denied, with U.S. Supreme Court precedent occasionally used to overturn a conviction. In the latter, plaintiffs relying on state civil rights statutes were mostly successful. Un aspecto del litigio por los derechos civiles que recibe escasa atención académica es la respuesta de la Suprema Corte estatal a los reclamos por discriminación racial a principios del siglo XX. Aunque los estudios del contexto social general sugieren que los reclamos encontrarían mayor apoyo en cortes no-sureñas, en los años posteriores a dicho periodo, esto no ha sido sistemáticamente investigado. Además, aunque la literatura sobre la Suprema Corte de Justicia establece diferentes patrones por tipo de discriminación, estos no pueden ser necesariamente extrapolados al nivel de resultados estatales. Demuestro que dado que la utilidad predictiva de esquemas "prestados" de otros estudios es discutible en este contexto, estos casos estatales requieren su propia investigación e interpretación. La evaluación de dos grupos claves de casos propuestos aquí sugiere patrones distintivos en la discriminación de los jurados sureños y las decisiones de "public accommodations" norteñas. En el primero, los reclamos fueron rutinariamente rechazados, ocasionalmente invocando precedente de la Suprema Corte de Justicia para darle vuelta a la condena. En el segundo grupo, los demandantes que descansaron su caso en los estatutos estatales sobre los derechos civiles en su mayoría tuvieron éxito. [source]

The Preemptive Power of State Supreme Courts: Adoption of Abortion and Death Penalty Legislation

POLICY STUDIES JOURNAL, Issue 3 2005
Laura Langer
We offer a theory about public policy adoption that depicts a game between state supreme courts and state policymakers. We hypothesize that court ideological hostility or friendliness operates to discourage or encourage policy enactment, with the likelihood of subsequent court intervention magnifying the relationship. To test the argument we examine the influence of court ideology on the enactment of state abortion and death penalty laws since the 1970s. Empirical analyses provide strong support for our theory, indicating that court ideological hostility or friendliness significantly influenced state abortion and death penalty policy enactments. In addition, the likelihood of court intervention conditioned this relationship, with the most pronounced effect occurring where subsequent court review was mandatory. The findings reveal courts exert important preemptive influence on law without hearing a case. This facet of judicial influence expands the traditional view of actors involved in the policymaking process. [source]

Early Twentieth-Century Racial Discrimination Cases in State Supreme Courts

POLITICS & POLICY, Issue 6 2009
FRANCINE S. ROMERO
An aspect of civil rights litigation receiving scant scholarly attention is the response of state supreme courts to racial discrimination claims in the early twentieth century. While scholarship on general social context suggests claims would find more support in non-southern courts and in the later years of the period, this has not been systematically investigated. Furthermore, while the literature on the U.S. Supreme Court establishes variance patterns by discrimination type, they cannot necessarily be extrapolated to state outcomes. I show that since the predictive utility of frameworks "borrowed" from other studies is dubious in this context, these state cases demand their own unique investigation and understanding. The assessment of two key clusters of cases offered here suggests distinct patterns in southern jury discrimination and northern public accommodations decisions. In the former, claims were routinely denied, with U.S. Supreme Court precedent occasionally used to overturn a conviction. In the latter, plaintiffs relying on state civil rights statutes were mostly successful. Un aspecto del litigio por los derechos civiles que recibe escasa atención académica es la respuesta de la Suprema Corte estatal a los reclamos por discriminación racial a principios del siglo XX. Aunque los estudios del contexto social general sugieren que los reclamos encontrarían mayor apoyo en cortes no-sureñas, en los años posteriores a dicho periodo, esto no ha sido sistemáticamente investigado. Además, aunque la literatura sobre la Suprema Corte de Justicia establece diferentes patrones por tipo de discriminación, estos no pueden ser necesariamente extrapolados al nivel de resultados estatales. Demuestro que dado que la utilidad predictiva de esquemas "prestados" de otros estudios es discutible en este contexto, estos casos estatales requieren su propia investigación e interpretación. La evaluación de dos grupos claves de casos propuestos aquí sugiere patrones distintivos en la discriminación de los jurados sureños y las decisiones de "public accommodations" norteñas. En el primero, los reclamos fueron rutinariamente rechazados, ocasionalmente invocando precedente de la Suprema Corte de Justicia para darle vuelta a la condena. En el segundo grupo, los demandantes que descansaron su caso en los estatutos estatales sobre los derechos civiles en su mayoría tuvieron éxito. [source]