Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-25T19:18:20.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do the “Haves” Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter's Framework to Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925-1988

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Donald R. Songer ,
Reginald S. Sheehan  and
Susan Brodie Haire
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.

This investigation examines the success of various types of litigants appearing before the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1925 to 1988. The analysis parallels the earlier studies by Songer and Sheehan (1992) and Wheeler et al. (1987) that applied the core concepts introduced by Galanter's groundbreaking analysis of why the “haves” come out ahead to study litigant success on the U.S. Courts of Appeals and state courts of last resort. The findings suggest that repeat player litigants with substantial organizational strength (“haves”) are much more likely to win in the federal courts of appeals than one-shot litigants with fewer resources. The “haves” win more frequently in published decisions, even after controls are introduced for the ideological makeup of the panel. The advantage in appellate litigation enjoyed by repeat player “haves” is remarkably consistent over time. In particular, the U.S. government has compiled an impressive record in these courts by dominating opposing litigants over the 64-year period of analysis.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 33 , Issue 4: Do the “Haves” Still Come Out Ahead? , 1999 , pp. 811 - 832
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Law and Society Association

Footnotes

The data analyzed in this work are taken from the United States Courts of Appeals Data Base, Donald R. Songer, principal investigator, supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. SES-89-12678. The database and its documentation are available to scholars at the Web site of the Program for Law and Judicial Politics, Michigan State University: <http:/www.ssc.msu.edu/~pls/pljp>. Although the authors appreciate this support, which made the research reported in this paper possible, all findings and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

Aldrich, John H., & Nelson, Forrest (1984) Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkins, Burton M. (1991) “Party Capability Theory as an Explanation for Intervention Behavior in the English Court of Appeals,” 35 American J. of Political Science 881–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carp, Robert A., & Rowland, C. K. (1983) Policymaking and Politics in the Federal Courts. Knoxville: Univ. of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Sue, & Songer, Donald R. (1988) “The Changing Role of the United States Courts of Appeals: The Flow of Litigation Revisited.” Presented at annual meeting of the Law and Society Association (6 June).Google Scholar
Easton, David (1953) The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Social Change,” 9 Law & Society Rev. 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Sheldon (1975) “Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals Revisited,” 69 American Political Science Rev. 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Sheldon (1997) Picking Federal judges: Lower Court Selection from Roosevelt through Reagan. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gottschall, Jon (1986) “Reagan's Appointments to the U.S. Courts of Appeals: The Continuation of a Judicial Revolution,” 48 Judicature 48–54.Google Scholar
Haynie, Stacia L. (1994) “Resource Inequalities and Litigation Outcomes in the Philippine Supreme Court,” 56 J. of Politics 752–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynie, Stacia L., Sheehan, Reginald S., & Songer, Donald R. (1994) “A Comparative Investigation of Resource Inequalities and Litigation Outcomes.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago (2 Sept.).Google Scholar
Howard, J. Woodford (1981) Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormick, Peter (1993) “Party Capability Theory and Appellate Success in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1949–1992,” 26 Canadian J. of Political Science 523–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, Harold J. (1971) The Role of Trial Courts in the Local Political System: a Comparison of Two Georgia Counties. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Political Science, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Reginald S., Mishler, William, & Songer, Donald R. (1992) “Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the Supreme Court,” 86 American Political Science Rev. 464–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., & Sheehan, Reginald S. (1992) “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals,” 36 American J. of Political Science 235–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, C. Neal (1981) “Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices' Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, 1946–1978,” 75 American Political Science Rev. 355–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanner, Craig (1975) “The Public Ordering of Private Relations: Part I: Initiating Civil Cases in Urban Trial Courts,” 8 Law & Society Rev. 421–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, Stanton, Cartwright, Bliss, Kagan, Robert, & Friedman, Lawrence (1987) “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870–1970,” 21 Law & Society Rev. 403–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar