Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:45:03.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studying Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation: Mixing Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Penelope Canan  and
George W. Pring
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Petition Clause of the First Amendment protects any peaceful, legal attempt to promote or discourage governmental action at all governmental levels and all governmental branches. This paper describes our examination of SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) cases where citizens who contact the government are sued by the interests they oppose. We present the findings of a legal document analysis and summarize ongoing research to understand the social dynamic processes and extralegal outcomes of SLAPPs. The purposeful blend of qualitative and quantitative methods is highlighted as an appropriate approach for answering micro- and macrosociological questions involved in these cross-institutional disputes.

Type
Research Note
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , 1988 , pp. 385 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

This paper is based on the work of the Political Litigation Project, an interdisciplinary research program of the Department of Sociology and College of Law, University of Denver. Support for the work has been provided by the Hughes Research and Development Fund of the College of Law, University of Denver, which was created to encourage empirical sociolegal studies. We are personally indebted to Nancy Reichman, Gloria Berndt, and Paul Colomy for their comments and criticisms throughout many stages of this work.

References

References

ABEL, Richard L. (1979) “The Rise of Capitalism and the Transformation of Disputing: From Confrontation over Honor to Competition over Property,” 27 UCLA Law Review 223.Google Scholar
ALEXANDER, Jeffrey C, GIESEN, Bernhard, MUNCH, Richard, and Neil J., SMELSER (eds.) (1987) The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
CAIN, Maureen, and Kalman, KULCSAR (1981–82) “Thinking of Disputes: An Essay on the Origins of the Dispute Industry,” 16 Law & Society Review 375.Google Scholar
CANAN, Penelope, and George W., PRING (1988) “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” Unpublished. Department of Sociology and College of Law, University of Denver.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COATES, Dan, and Steven, PENROD (1980–81) “Social Psychology and the Emergence of Disputes,” 15 Law & Society Review 655.Google Scholar
COLLINS, Randall (1981) “On Micro-Foundations of Macro-Sociology,” 86 American Journal of Sociology 984.Google Scholar
FELSTINER, William L., Richard, ABEL, and Austin, SARAT (1980-81) “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming . . .,” 15 Law & Society Review 631.Google Scholar
GALANTER, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Review 95.Google Scholar
GUNTHER, Gerald (1985) Constitutional Law, 11th ed. Mineola, NY: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
KAIRYS, David (ed.) (1982) The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
KNORR-CETINA, Karin, and Aaron V., CICOUREL (eds.) (1981) Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS (1973) The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. S. Doc. No. 92-82, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 1031.Google Scholar
LUHMANN, Niklas (1982) “The Autonomy of the Legal System,” in The Differentiation of Society. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MATHER, Lynn, and Barbara, YNGVESSON (1980-81) “Language, Audience, and the Transformation of Disputes,” 15 Law & Society Review 775.Google Scholar
MEIKLEJOHN, Alexander (1979) Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
MERRY, Sally Engle, and Susan S., SILBEY (1984) “What Do Plaintiffs Want? Reexamining the Concept of Dispute,” 9 The Justice System Journal 151.Google Scholar
MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW (1975) “Counterclaim and Countersuit Harassment of Private Environmental Plaintiffs: The Problem, Its Implications, and Proposed Solutions,” 74 Michigan Law Review 106.Google Scholar
NADER, Laura (ed.) (1980) No Access to Law: Alternatives to the American Judicial System. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
PRING, George W. (1985) “Intimidation Suits Against Citizens: A Risk for Public-Policy Advocates,” 7 National Law Journal 16.Google Scholar
REICHARDT, Charles S., and Thomas, COOK (1979) “Beyond Qualitative Versus Quantitative Methods,” in Cook, T. and Reichardt, C. S. (eds.), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
STANFORD LAW REVIEW (1984) “Note: The Misapplication of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine in the Non-Antitrust Right to Petition Cases,” 36 Stanford Law Review 1243.Google Scholar
STARR, June O., and Barbara, YNGVESSON (1975) “Scarcity and Disputing: Zeroing-in on Compromise Decisions,” 2 American Ethnologist 553.Google Scholar
TRUBEK, David M. (1980-81) “Studying Courts in Context,” 15 Law & Society Review 485.Google Scholar
TURK, Austin T. (1976) “Law as a Weapon of Social Conflict,” 23 Social Problems 276.Google Scholar

Amendment Cited

U.S. CONST. amend. I.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Bill Johnson's Restaurants v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983).Google Scholar
Webb v. Fury, 282 S.E.2d 28 (W. Va. 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar