¹ Schubert, (ed.), Judicial Decision-Making (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963), Volume 4Google Scholar of the International Yearbook of Political Behavior Research.

² Symposium on “Jurimetrics,” Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Winter, 1963)Google Scholar.

³ The Roosevelt Court, A Study in Judicial Politics and Values, 1937-1947 (New York: Macmillan, 1948)Google Scholar; and Civil Liberties and the Vinson Court (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1954), ch. 9Google Scholar.

⁴ Ewing, Cortez A. M., The Judges of the Supreme Court, 1789-1987 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1938)Google Scholar; Mott, Rodney L., “Measurement of Judicial Personnel,” New York University Law Quarterly, Vol. 23 (1948), pp. 262–277Google Scholar; Mott, Rodney L., “Judicial Influence,” this Review, Vol. 30 (1936), pp. 295–315Google Scholar; Mott, Rodney L., Albright, Spencer D., and Semmerling, Helen R., “Judicial Personnel,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 167 (1933), pp. 143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McHargue, Daniel S., Appointments to the Supreme Court, 1789-1982 (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1949)Google Scholar.

⁵ Schmidhauser, John R., “The Justices of the Supreme Court: A Collective Portrait,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 3 (1959), pp. 1–57Google Scholar.

⁶ “Dimensions and Axes of Supreme Court Decisions: A Study in the Sociology of Conflict,” Social Forces, Vol. 34 (1955), pp. 19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ “The Uses and Limitations of Social Science Methods in Analyzing Judicial Behavior” (American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, mimeo. paper, pp. 1-22, September, 1956).

⁸ Guilford, Joy Paul, “Factorial Angles in Psychology,” Psychological Review, Vol. 68 (1961), pp. 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Thurstone, Louis L. and Chave, E. J., The Measurement of Attitude (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1929)Google Scholar; and Thurstone, , The Measurement of Values (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1959)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Thurstone, Louis L. and Degan, J. W., “A Factorial Study of the Supreme Court,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (1951), pp. 628–635Google Scholar.

¹¹ New York: Random House, Studies in Political Science No. 25, 1955.

¹² See, e.g., Wechsler, Herbert, “Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 73 (1959), pp. 1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Op. cit., pp. 1-2.

¹⁴ “The Impact of a Court Decision: Aftermath of the McCollum Case,” Journal of Public Law, Vol. 6 (1957), pp. 455–463Google Scholar.

¹⁵ “Zorach v. Clauson: The Impact of a Supreme Court Decision,” this Review, Vol. 53 (1959), pp. 777-791.

¹⁶ McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203 (1948); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306 (1952).

¹⁷ Cf. Frederick K. Beutel's report of his investigations into the analogous problem of noncompliance with statutory law, a study of the enforcement of “bad-check” laws in the states of Nebraska, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Vermont: Some Potentialities of Experimental Jurisprudence as a New Branch of Social Science (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska, 1957), Part 2Google Scholar.

¹⁸ New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961.

¹⁹ “The National Consumers' League and the Brandeis Brief,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 1 (1957), pp. 267–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Caucasians Only; The Supreme Court, the NAACP, and the Restrictive Covenant Cases (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California, 1959)Google Scholar.

²¹ Schubert, Glendon, “Politics and the Constitution: The Bricker Amendment During 1953,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 16 (1954), pp. 257–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² Schmidhauser, John R., The Supreme Court; Its Politics, Personalities, and Procedures (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), Part 2Google Scholar.

²³ Hakman, Nathan, “Business Influence in the Judicial Process,” Western Business Review, Vol. 1 (1957), pp. 124–130Google Scholar.

²⁴ Krislov, Samuel, “Constituency versus Constitutionalism: The Desegregation Issue and Tensions and Aspirations of Southern Attorneys General,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 3 (1959), pp. 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ Schubert, , Quantitative Analysis of Judicial Behavior (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1959), pp. 68–76, and references cited thereinGoogle Scholar.

²⁶ Newland, Chester A., “Legal Periodicals and the United States Supreme Court,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 3 (1959), pp. 58–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ Nagel, Stuart S., “Sociometric Relations Among American Courts,” Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 43 (1962), pp. 136–142Google Scholar. Cf. Mott, “Judicial Influence,” op. cit. ftn. 4, supra.

²⁸ Vose, Clement E., “The Judiciary and the Local Power Structure: An Interest Group Approach” (American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, mimeo. paper, 09, 1960)Google Scholar; Herndon, James, “The Role of the Judiciary in State Political Systems: Some Explorations” (Midwest Conference of Political Scientists, mimeo. paper, 04, 1962)Google Scholar.

²⁹ Herbert Jacob and Kenneth Vines, “The Role of the Judiciary in American State Politics,” ch. 9 in op. cit. ftn. 1, supra.

³⁰ Snyder, Eloise C., “The Supreme Court as a Small Group,” Social Forces, Vol. 33 (1958), pp. 232–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Op. cit., ftn. 25, supra, ch. 3.

³² Ulmer, S. Sidney, “The Analysis of Behavior Patterns on the United States Supreme Court,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 22 (1960), pp. 633–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ Op. cit., ftn. 25, supra, pp. 129-142.

³⁴ “Some Comments on the Applicability of Bloc Analysis to State Appellate Courts” (Midwest Conference of Political Scientists, mimeo. paper, May 1961).

³⁵ “Assignment of the Court's Opinion by the Chief Justice” (Midwest Conference of Political Scientists, mimeo. paper, May, 1960).

³⁶ Op. cit., ftn. 25, supra, pp. 208-210.

³⁷ Op. cit., ftn. 32, supra, pp. 640-647.

³⁸ Danelski, David J., “The Influence of the Chief Justice in the Decision Process of the Supreme Court” (American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, mimeo. paper, 09, 1960)Google Scholar.

³⁹ In: Murphy, Walter F. and Pritchett, C. Herman, Courts, Judges and Politics (New York: Random House, 1961), pp. 497–508Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Ulmer, S. Sidney, “Homeostatic Tendencies in the United States Supreme Court,” in Ulmer, (ed.), Introductory Readings in Political Behavior (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1961), p. 174Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Ulmer, S. Sidney, “A Note on Assignment Procedure in the Michigan Supreme Court,” (mimeo. paper, 1962)Google Scholar.

⁴² S. Sidney Ulmer, “Leadership in the Michigan Supreme Court,” ch. 1 in op. cit., ftn. 1, supra.

⁴³ Op. cit., ftn. 25, supra, pp. 192-210.

⁴⁴ Ibid., pp. 210-254; and “Policy without Law: An Extension of the Certiorari Game,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 14 (1962), pp. 284–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^44a Cf. Frank, Jerome, Law and the Modern Mind (New York, 1930)Google Scholar, Part Three, Chs. 1 and 2: “Getting Rid of the Need for Father-Authority” and “Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Completely Adult Jurist.”

^44b Grossman, Joel B., “Role-Playing and the Analysis of Judicial Behavior: The Case of Mr. Justice Frankfurter,” Journal of Public Law, Vol. 11 (1962), pp. 285–309Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ “Personal Assistants to Supreme Court Justices: The Law Clerks,” Oregon Law Review, Vol. 40 (1961), pp. 299–317Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Op. cit., ftn. 40, supra, pp. 167-188.

⁴⁷ Op. cit., ftn. 5, supra.

⁴⁸ Cf. Ulmer, S. Sidney, “Public Office in the Social Background of Supreme Court Justices,” American Journal of Economies and Sociology, Vol. 21 (1962), pp. 57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁹ Op. cit., p. 45.

⁵⁰ Ewers, Thomas A., A Study of the Background of the Successful and Unsuccessful Candidates for the Iowa Supreme Court (State University of Iowa, Master's thesis in political science, 1960)Google Scholar; Bashful, Eramett W., The Florida Supreme Court: A Study in Judicial Selection (Tallahassee: Florida State University, Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, Studies in Government No. 24, 1958), ch. 5Google Scholar. Cf. Hoopes, Todd, “Experiment in Measurement of Judicial Qualifications in the Supreme Court of Ohio,” University of Cincinnati Law Review, Vol. 18 (1949), pp. 417–466Google Scholar; and Mott, Albright, and Semmerling, op. cit. ftn. 4, supra.

⁵¹ “Hoyesteretts rolle i norsk politikk,” Tids-skrift for Samfunnsforskning, Vol. 1 (1960), pp. 94–104Google Scholar. Cf. Nagel, Stuart S., “Culture Patterns and Judicial Systems,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 16 (12, 1962), pp. 147–157Google Scholar.

⁵² Op. cit., ftn. 1, supra, ch. 8.

⁵³ “Conscientious Objectors before Norwegian Military Courts,” ibid., ch. 7.

⁵⁴ Somit, Albert, Tanenhaus, Joseph and Wilke, Walter, “Aspects of Judicial Sentencing Behavior,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 21 (1960), pp. 613–620Google Scholar. A study of a federal appellate court has shown that there are statistically significant differences In the extent to which individual circuit judges vote to affirm or to reverse the decisions of different district judges within the circuit. Dozeman, Alvin, A Study of Selected Aspects of Behavior of the Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Michigan State University, unpublished MaBter's thesis in political science, 1960)Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ “Political Party Affiliation and Judges' De-Decisions,” this Review, Vol. 55 (1961), pp. 843–850Google Scholar; and cf. his “Political Parties and Judicial Review in American History,” Journal of Public Law, Vol. 11 (1962), pp. 328–340Google Scholar. For a discussion of the questionnaire survey, see his “Off-the-Bench Judicial Attitudes,” ch. 2 in op. cit., ftn. 1, supra; for his research design and methods, see his “Testing Relations between Judicial Characteristics and Judicial Decision-Making,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 15 (1962), pp. 425–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and for his findings regarding parametric differences among the judges in his sample, see his “Judicial Backgrounds and Criminal Cases,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 53 (1962), pp. 333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁶ In another article, Nagel has calculated the partisan affiliation of all 304 state supreme court judges (in 1955): half were Democrats, 39% were Republicans, and party affiliation was undetermined for 11 per cent. The membership of the courts in fourteen Southern and border states was 100 per cent Democratic, and the Democrats were in the majority in two of the three remaining border states; however, Democratic judges comprised a majority in only 9 of the remaining 31 states. Thus, 25 state courts had Democratic majorities, and 23 had Republican majorities. Obviously, the Democratic were overrepresented in the South, and underrepresented elsewhere in the country. Nagel confirmed this inference by comparing the percentages of Democratic and Republican judges with the 1954 congressional vote, which showed that the margin of over-and-underrepresentation was about ± 15 per cent. See his “Unequal Party Representation on the State Supreme Courts,” Journal of the American Judicature Society, Vol. 45 (1961), pp. 62–85Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Keefe, William J., “Judges and Politics: The Pennsylvania Plan of Judge Selection,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 20 (1959), pp. 621–631Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Ibid., p. 630.

⁵⁹ Op. cit., ftn. 25, supra, pp. 129-142.

⁶⁰ Ulmer, S. Sidney, “The Political Party Variable in the Michigan Supreme Court,” Journal of Public Law, Vol. 11 (1962), pp. 352–362Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Nagel, Stuart S., “Ethnic Affiliations and Judicial Propensities,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 24 (1962), pp. 92–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶² Schmidhauser, John R., “Judicial Behavior and the Sectional Crisis of 1837-1860,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 23 (1961), pp. 615–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶³ Schmidhauser, John R., “Stare Decisis, Dissent, and the Background of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States,” University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 14 (1962), pp. 194–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an analysis of voting behavior in the overruling cases, see: Ulmer, S. Sidney, “An Empirical Analysis of Selected Aspects of Lawmaking of the United States Supreme Court,” Journal of Public Law, Vol. 8 (1959), pp. 414–436Google Scholar; and also his “Polar Classification of Supreme Court Justices,” South Carolina Law Quarterly, Vol. 12 (1960), pp. 407–417Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Op. cit., ftn. 25, supra, ch. 5.

⁶⁵ Other examples of empirical experimentation, In quest of the most relevant variables, may be observed In: Ulmer, S. Sidney, “Judicial Review as Political Behavior: A Temporary Check on Congress,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 4 (1960), pp. 426–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Spaeth, Harold J., “Judicial Power as a Variable Motivating Supreme Court Behavior,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 6 (1962), pp. 54–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schubert, Glendon A., Constitutional Politics: The Political Behavior of Supreme Court Justices and the Constitutional Policies That They Make (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), ch. 11Google Scholar; and Grossman, op. cit., ftn. 44b, supra.

⁶⁶ “Supreme Court Behavior and Civil Rights,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 13 (1960), pp. 288–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Analysis of Behavior Patterns on the United States Supreme Court,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 22 (1960), pp. 629–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Scaling Judicial Cases: A Methodological Note,” American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 4, No. 8 (04 1961), pp. 31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “A Note on Attitudinal Consistency in the United States Supreme Court,” Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 22 (1961), pp. 195–204Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 204. For an independent test of Ulmer's prediction, and the statement of a more elaborate set of predictions for the 1962-63 Term, see the first and second references, respectively, cited in ftn. 70, infra.

⁶⁸ Spaeth, Harold J., An “Analysis of Judicial Attitudes in the Labor Relations Decisions of the Warren Court” (Midwest Conference of Political Scientists, mimeo. paper, 04, 1962)Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Harold J. Spaeth, “Warren Court Attitudes toward Business: The ‘B’ Scale,” ch. 4 in op. cit., ftn. 1, supra; and cf. his “Judicial Power as a Variable Motivating Supreme Court Behavior,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 6, (1962), pp. 54–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an alternative research design and approach, and somewhat contradictory substantive findings, see Tanenhaus, Joseph, “Supreme Court Attitudes toward Federal Administrative Agencies, 1947-1956-An Application of Social Science Methods to the Study of the Judicial Process,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 14 (1961), pp. 473–502Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Schubert, Glendon, “The 1960-61 Term of the Supreme Court: A Psychological Analysis,” this Review, Vol. 56 (1962), pp. 90–107Google Scholar. See also his “Psychometric Analysis of Judicial Behavior: The 1961 Term of the Supreme Court,” in op. cit., ftn. 2, supra.

⁷¹ Cf. Spaeth, Harold J., “An Approach to the Study of Attitudinal Differences as An aspect of Judicial Behavior,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 5 (1961), pp. 165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷² The Roosevelt Court, op. cit., ftn. 3, supra; and op. cit., ftn. 10, supra.

⁷³ Schubert, , “A Solution to the Indeterminate Factorial Resolution of Thurstone and Degan's Study of the Supreme Court,” Behavioral Science, Vol. 7 (1962), pp. 448–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁴ For a sample of all cases involving constitutional amendments for the period 1921-1953, Bloise Snyder has reported coefficients of reproducibility ranging from .89 to 1.00 for the set of scales that she constructed. See her “Uncertainty and the Supreme Court's Decisions,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 65 (1959), pp. 241–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Of course, the content of such a sample would be overwhelmingly issues of economic liberalism (with a scattering of civil liberties cases) until 1937, and almost exclusively civil liberties cases thereafter. So Snyder's research implies that these two variables have been dominant for the past forty years.

⁷⁵ Op. cit., ftn. 62, supra.

^75a Hayakawa, Takeo, “Legal Science and Judicial Behavior, With Particular Reference to Civil Liberties in the Japanese Supreme Court,” Kobe University Law Review, No. 2 (1962), pp. 1–27Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ “Predicting Supreme Court Decisions Mathematically: A Quantitative Analysis of the Right to Counsel Cases,” this Review, Vol. 51 (1957), pp. 1–12Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Fisher, Franklin M., “The Mathematical Analysis of Supreme Court Decisions: The Use and Abuse of Quantitative Methods,” this Review, Vol. 52 (1958), pp. 321–338Google Scholar; and also his “On the Existence and Linearity of Perfect Predictors in ‘Content Analysis’,” Modern Uses of Logic in Law, Vol. 60M (03, 1960), pp. 1–9Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Op. cit., ftn. 25, supra, pp. 316-363.

⁷⁹ Nagel, Stuart S., “Using Simple Calculations to Predict Judicial Decisions,” American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 4, No. 4 (12, 1960), pp. 24–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Weighting Variables in Judicial Prediction,” Modern Uses of Logic in Law, Vol. 60S (09, 1960), pp. 93–96Google Scholar. Cf. Ulmer, S. Sidney, “Supreme Court Behavior in Racial Exclusion Cases: 1935-1960,” this Review, Vol. 56 (1962), pp. 325–330Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ “Content Analysis of Judicial Opinions and Rules of Law,” ch. 6 in op. cit., ftn. 1, supra. Another study which uses regression analysis, as the basis for determining the relative influence of the stimuli which tend to evoke positive responses in jurisdictional decision-making in certiorari cases, is Joseph Tanenhaus, Marvin Schick, Matthew Muraskin, and Daniel Rosen, “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory,” ibid., ch. 5.

⁸¹ For some further views on the possibility of making the concept of stare decisis operational, for use as an attitudinal variable in studies of group decision-making, see Schubert, “Civilian Control and Stare Decisis in the Warren Court,” ibid., ch. 3.