Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:08:35.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reactions of State Supreme Courts to A U.S. Supreme Court Civil Liberties Decision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Bradley C. Canon
Bradley C. Canon*
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Political scientists have in recent years been focusing more of their attention on compliance with Supreme Court decisions. Of course, with rare exceptions, the Supreme Court does not issue orders directly; rather it announces broad policies in the form of opinions. Detailed interpretation and application of these policies are, insofar as the judicial system is concerned at least, left to other courts. Thus those interested in the nature of compliance with Supreme Court policies must explore the manner in which lower courts handle the high court decisions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Fall 1973 , pp. 109 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

AUTHOR'S NOTE: I wish to thank Richard L. Engstrom for assistance in gathering the data and Malcolm E. Jewell for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1971 meeting of the American Political Science Association in Chicago.

References

Cases

Boulden v. State, 179 So.2d 20 (Ala. 1965).Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968).Google Scholar
Camera v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967).Google Scholar
City of Akron v. Williams, 192 N.E.2d 63 (Ohio 1963).Google Scholar
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).Google Scholar
Clubb v. State, 326 S.W.2d 816 (Ark. 1959).Google Scholar
Commonwealth v. Cockfield, 190 A.2d 898 (Pa. 1963).Google Scholar
Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969).Google Scholar
Dorrough v. State, 452 P.2d 816 (Okla. Ct. Crim. App. 1969).Google Scholar
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963).Google Scholar
Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266 (Utah 1968).Google Scholar
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960).Google Scholar
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964).Google Scholar
Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969).Google Scholar
Giacona v. State, 372 S.W.2d 328 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. 1962).Google Scholar
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).Google Scholar
Gross v. State, 201 A.2d 808 (Md. 1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer v. Commonwealth, 148 S.E.2d 878 (Va. 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 (1947).Google Scholar
In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).Google Scholar
Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane v. State, 424 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965).Google Scholar
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).Google Scholar
McNear v. Rhay, 398 P.2d 732 (Wash. 2d Dep't 1965).Google Scholar
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Google Scholar
Montgomery v. State, 176 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1965).Google Scholar
People v. Blessing, 142 N.W.2d 709 (Mich. 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
People v. Bradley, 460 P.2d 129 (Cal. 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
People v. Edwards, 458 P.2d 713 (Cal. 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
People v. Kaiser, 233 N.E.2d 818 (N.Y. 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
People v. Lane, 179 N.E.2d 339 (N.Y. 1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
People v. Reeves, 391 P.2d 393 (Cal. 1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson v. State, 234 N.E.2d 488 (Ind. 1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 41 (1968).Google Scholar
State v. Bitz, 404 P.2d 628 (Idaho 1965).Google Scholar
State v. Carter, 181 So.2d 763 (La. 1965).Google Scholar
State v. Clifford, 141 N.W.2d 124 (Minn. 1966).Google Scholar
State v. Dodge, 365 P.2d 798 (Utah 1961).Google Scholar
State v. Durham, 367 S.W.2d 619 (Mo. 2d Div. 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State v. Hoy, 430 P.2d 275 (Kan 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State v. James, 169 So.2d 89 (La. 1964), rev'd, 382 U.S. 36 (1965).Google Scholar
State v. Kinderman, 136 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 1965).Google Scholar
State v. Lcuden, 387 P.2d 240 (Utah 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State v. Tuttle, 399 P.2d 580 (Utah 1965).Google Scholar
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).Google Scholar
Thompson v. State, 447 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. 1969).Google Scholar
Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699 (1948).Google Scholar
United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950).Google Scholar
Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967).Google Scholar
Williams v. State, 222 N.E.2d 397 (Ind. 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

CANON, Bradley C. (1972) “Characteristics and Career Patterns of Supreme Court Justices,” 45 State Government 34.Google Scholar
CANON, Bradley C.. and Dean, JAROS (1970) “External Variables, Institutional Structure and Dissent on State Supreme Courts,” 3 Polity 175.Google Scholar
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW (1967) “Standing to Object to an Unreasonable Search and Seizure,” 34 University of Chicago Law Review 342.Google Scholar
ELAZAR, Daniel (1966) American Federalism: A View From the States. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar
GLICK, Henry R. (1971) Supreme Courts in State Politics. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
GOLDMAN, Sheldon and Thomas P., JAHNIGE (1971) The Federal Courts as a Political System. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
GRAHAM, Fred (1970) The Self-inflicted Wound. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
GREENBERG, Jack (1959) Race Relations and American Law. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KATZ, Michael (1966) “The Supreme Court and the States: An Inquiry Into Mapp v. Ohio in North Carolina,” 45 North Carolina Law Review 119.Google Scholar
MANWARING, David (1968) “The Impact of Mapp v. Ohio,” in David, EVERSON (ed.) The Supreme Court as Policy Maker: Three Studies on the Impact of Judicial Decisions. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
MANWARING, David (1963) “California and the Fourth Amendment,” 16 Stanford Law Review 318.Google Scholar
MILLER, Frank (1970) Prosecution: The Decision to Charge a Suspect. Prosecution: The Decision to Charge a Suspect: Little Brown.Google Scholar
MURPHY, Walter (1959) “Lower Court Checks on Supreme Court Power,” 53 American Political Science Review 1017.Google Scholar
NAGEL, Stuart (1965) “Testing the Effects of Excluding Illegally Seized Evidence,” 1965 Wisconsin Law Review 283.Google Scholar
NEW YORK TIMES, August 24, 1958, at 1, 42; April 14, 1963, at 1; August 11, 1963, at 49; April 30, 1966, at 13.Google Scholar
PATTERSON, Samuel W. (1968) “The Political Cultures of the American States” 30 Journal of Politics 187.Google Scholar
SICKELS, Robert J. (1965) “The Illusion of Judicial Consensus: Zoning Cases in the Maryland Court of Appeals,” 58 American Political Science Review 100.Google Scholar
TAFT, Kingsley A. (1964) “Protecting the Public from Mapp v. Ohio Without Amending the Constitution,” 50 American Bar Association Journal 815.Google Scholar
VINES, Kenneth N. (1965) “Southern Supreme Courts and Race Relations,” 18 Western Political Quarterly 5.Google Scholar
WASBY, Stephen L. (1970) The Impact of the United States Supreme Court: Some Perspectives. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY (1965) “Standing to Object to Unlawful Search and Seizure,” 1965 Washington University Law Quarterly 488.Google Scholar
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY (1970) “Unannounced Entry to Search,” 1970 Washington University Law Quarterly 205.Google Scholar