US Supreme Court Doctrine in the State High Courts challenges theoretical and empirical accounts about how state high courts use US Supreme Court doctrine and precedent. Michael Fix and Benjamin Kassow argue that theories that do not account for the full range of ways in which state high courts can...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Bibliographische Detailangaben

Hauptverfasser:	Fix, Michael P. 1980- (VerfasserIn), Kassow, Benjamin J. ca. 20./21. Jh (VerfasserIn)
Format:	Elektronisch E-Book
Sprache:	English
Veröffentlicht:	Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, USA ; Port Melbourne, Australia ; New Delhi, India ; Singapore Cambridge University Press 2020
Schlagworte:	United States / Supreme Court / Influence Courts of last resort / United States / States Judicial process / United States / States Federal government / United States Stare decisis / United States
Online-Zugang:	BSB01 FUBA1 UBA01 UBG01 Volltext
Zusammenfassung:	US Supreme Court Doctrine in the State High Courts challenges theoretical and empirical accounts about how state high courts use US Supreme Court doctrine and precedent. Michael Fix and Benjamin Kassow argue that theories that do not account for the full range of ways in which state high courts can act are, by definition, incomplete. Examining three important precedents - Atkins v. Virginia, Lemon v. Kurtzman, and DC v. Heller/McDonald v. Chicago - Fix and Kassow find that state high courts commonly ignore Supreme Court precedent for reasons of political ideology, path dependence, and fact patterns in cases that may be of varying similarity to those found in relevant US Supreme Court doctrine. This work, which provides an important addition to the scholarly literature on the impact of Supreme Court decisions, should be read by anyone interested in law and politics or traditional approaches to the study of legal decision-making
Beschreibung:	1 Online-Ressource (XXV, 182 Seiten) Illustrationen, Diagramme
ISBN:	9781108891141
DOI:	10.1017/9781108891141