No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 December 2018
1. See text of review at pp. 618–19.Google Scholar
2. Id. at pp. 619–20.Google Scholar
3. Harold J. Spaeth & David J. Peterson, The Analysis and Interpretation of Dimensionality: The Case of Civil Liberties Decision Making, 15 Midwest J. Political Sci. 415 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. David W. Rohde & Harold J. Spaeth, Supreme Court Decision Making (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1976).Google Scholar
5. Block writes, “Indeed, Spaeth's new book adds nothing to the decision model described in his 1976 Supreme Court Decision Making.” See text of review at p. 619.Google Scholar
6. See text of review at p. 625.Google Scholar
7. See note 5 of review.Google Scholar
8. Rohde & Spaeth, supra note 4, at 96 nn.19, 20.Google Scholar
9. Tanenhaus, Joseph, The Cumulative Scaling of Judicial Decisions, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 1583 (1966).Google Scholar
10. Spaeth, Harold J., Unidimensionality and Item Invariance in Judicial Scaling, 10 Behavioral Sci. 290 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. See text of review at pp. 620–21.Google Scholar
12. Spaeth, Harold J., Supreme Court Policy Making: Explanation and Prediction 153 (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1979).Google Scholar
13. Id. Google Scholar
14. Rohde & Spaeth, supra note 4, at 157–68.Google Scholar
15. Spaeth & Peterson, supra note 3, at 438–41.Google Scholar
16. See text of review at pp. 624–26.Google Scholar
17. Spaeth, supra note 12, at 137.Google Scholar
18. Id. at 124.Google Scholar
19. See text of review at p. 625.Google Scholar
20. Id.Google Scholar