Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:47:42.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Claims, Legal Derailment, and the Context of Disputes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Penelope Canan ,
Gloria Satterfield ,
Laurie Larson  and
Martin Kretzmann
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 article is about claims manipulation and the influence of context on the careers and outcomes of disputes. We explore eleven cases in which civil tort action was used when citizen opponents petitioned the government (lawsuits called SLAPPs or “strategic lawsuits against public participation”). Rather than being totally contingent on interactional and situational factors, these disputes followed two general trajectories of transformation, depending on whether they arose from an “internal” or “external” setting. Disputes initially tied to a broad cultural or political claims base were transformed into more narrow and concrete claims. Yet the original political claims of the lawsuit targets were less likely derailed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , 1990 , pp. 923 - 952
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 The Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meetings of the Law and Society Association, Madison, Wis., June 1989. This research was sponsored by the National Science Foundation's Law and Social Sciences Program under Grant No. SES-8714495. For a complete list of participants and news coverage consulted for the cases discussed here, contact the Political Litigation Project, University of Denver, Department of Sociology, Denver, CO 80208.

We would like to thank Nancy Reichman, Reid T. Reynolds, Neal Milner, Shari Seidman Diamond, and the anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts of this paper, and Karen Caldwell and Patricia Wellinger for their research assistance.

References

References

AMY, Douglas (1987) The Politics of Environmental Mediation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
BELLAH, Robert (1967) “Civil Religion in America,” 96 Daedalus 1.Google Scholar
BELLAH, Robert, and Philip, HAMMOND (1980) Varieties of Civil Religion. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
BELLAH, Robert, MADSEN, Richard, SULLIVAN, William, SWIDLER, Ann, and Steven, TIPTON (1987) Individualism and Commitment in American Life: Readings on the Themes of Habit of the Heart. New York: Perennial Library.Google Scholar
BELLAH, Robert, MADSEN, Richard, SULLIVAN, William, SWIDLER, Ann, and Steven, TIPTON (1985) Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
BURGESS, Heidi (1983) “Environmental Mediation (The Foothills Case),” in Susskind, L., Bacow, L., and Wheeler, M. (eds.), Resolving Environmental Regulatory Disputes. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.Google Scholar
CANAN, Penelope, and George W., PRING (1988a) “Studying Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation: Mixing Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches,” 22 Law & Society Review 385.Google Scholar
CANAN, Penelope, and George W., PRING (1988b) “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation,” 35 Social Problems 506.Google Scholar
CANAN, Penelope, and George W., PRING (1986) “Political Repression Masquerading as Torts: The Use of the Courts to Chill Citizen Participation in Government.” Unpublished manuscript, Political Litigation Project, University of Denver.Google Scholar
COLEMAN, James (1957) Community Conflict. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
DEWEY, John (1934) A Common Faith. New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
DUMBAULD, Edward (1979) The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.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
HORNBY, Bill (1989) “Veto of Two Forks Dam Poses Twin Dilemmas for Bush Administration,” Denver Post, 7 Sept., sec. B, p. 1.Google Scholar
KIDDER, Robert L. (1980–81) “The End of the Road? Problems in the Analysis of Disputes,” 15 Law & Society Review 717.Google Scholar
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS (1973) The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. Senate Document No. 92-82, 92d Congress, 2d Session, 1031. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
LOGAN, John R., and Harvey L., MOLOTCH (1987) Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
MARTY, Martin E. (1987) Religion & Republic: The American Circumstance. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
MATHER, Lynn, and Barbara, YNGVESSON (1980–81) “Language, Audience, and the Transformation of Disputes,” 15 Law & Society Review 775.Google Scholar
MERRY, Sally Engle, and Susan S., SILBEY (1984) “What Do Plaintiffs Want? Reexamining the Concept of Dispute,” 9 Justice System Journal 151.Google Scholar
NADER, Laura, and Harry F., TODD (eds.) (1978) The Disputing Process—Law in Ten Societies. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHNAIBERG, Allan (1980) The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
SCHNEIDER, Joseph (1985) “Social Problems Theory: The Constructionist View,” 11 Annual Review of Sociology 209.Google Scholar
SCHWARTZ, Bernard (1971) The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History. New York: Chelsea House Publishers in association with McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
SEIDEL, John V. (1988) The Ethnograph: A Program for the Computer Assisted Analysis of Text Based Data. Littleton, CO: Qualis Research Associates.Google Scholar
SMITH, Don L. (1971) The Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances: Constitutional Development and Interpretations. Lubbock: Texas Tech University.Google Scholar
SPECTOR, Malcolm, and John, KITSUSE (1977) Constructing Social Problems. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings.Google Scholar
STANFORD LAW REVIEW (1984) Note, “The Misapplication of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine in Non-Antitrust Right to Petition Cases,” 36 Stanford Law Review 1243.Google Scholar
STEPHENSON, Carl, and Frederick G., MARCHAM (eds.) (1972) Sources of English Constitutional History, Vol. 1. Rev. ed. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (1978) “Final Environmental Impact Statement—Proposed Foothills Project.” U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Anchorage Joint Venture v. Anchorage Condominium Ass'n, Civil Action No. 800V255 (Dist. Ct., Summit County, Colo., dism. Apr. 20, 1982), aff'd, 670 P.2d 1249 (Colo. App. Feb. 3, 1983), cert. denied, No. 83SC124 (Colo. Sept. 26, 1983).Google Scholar
City and County of Denver v. Andrus, Civil Action No. 77-W-306 (D. Colo., dism. per stip. Feb. 15, 1979), pet. for writ of mandamus filed sub nom. Worcester v. Winner, No. 79-1005 (10th Cir., docketed Jan. 9, 1979).Google Scholar
Cole v. Lehman, Civil Action No. 85CV2187 (Dist. Ct., Adams County, Colo., filed 1985), Case No. 87-CA0943 dism. per stip. (Colo. App. 861-111, dism. Dec. 15, 1988.Google Scholar
Concerned Members of Intermountain Rural Electric Ass'n v. McCutcheon, Case No. 84-CV-1632 (Dist. Ct., Jefferson County, Colo., sum. jgmt. den. May 10, 1985), rev'd, Case No. 855SA244 (Colo. Feb. 10, 1986), dism. on remand (Dist. Ct., July 17, 1986), pet. for review filed (Colo. August 1, 1986).Google Scholar
Smith v. McDonald, 562 F. Supp. 829 (D.N.C. Apr. 28, 1983), aff'd, 737 F.2d 427 (4th Cir. June 28, 1984), aff'd, 105 S.Ct. 2787 (June 19, 1985).Google Scholar

Statute Cited

National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (1976).Google Scholar