DOCSLIB.ORG

The U.S. Supreme Court's Selection of Petitions In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The U.S. Supreme Court's Selection of Petitions In THE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S SELECTION OF PETITIONS IN FORMA PAUPERIS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Wendy L. Watson, M.P.P., J.D. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2004 Dissertation Committee: Approved By Professor Lawrence Baum, Adviser Professor Elliot Slotnick ____________________________________ Professor Dean Lacy Adviser Political Science Graduate Program Copyright by Wendy Lyn Watson 2004 ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the question of whether, how, and how much the U.S. Supreme Court’s selection of paid petitions differs from its selection of petitions in forma pauperis, or IFP petitions -- those petitions filed by individuals who are financially unable to pay the Court’s filing fee. In addition to expanding upon existing scholarship on the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda-setting function, the study also examines the accessibility of the Court to the poor and the Court’s attention to issues affecting low- income people. In examining the Court’s agenda-setting function, existing studies have identified certain case characteristics, called “cue characteristics,” that increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will select a petition for review: reference to a conflict between circuits or state courts of last resort; an allegation of a novel or important legal issue; a dissent on the court below; a reversal in the case’s procedural history; filing of a sua sponte responsive brief, as opposed to the absence of a responsive brief or a responsive brief filed only at the request of the Court; and cert-stage participation by amici curiae. Those studies, however, have generally limited their analysis to paid petitions to the exclusion of those petitions filed by indigent litigants, the IFP petitions; even those studies that have included IFP cases in their analysis have failed to compare the Court’s agenda-setting process across the two dockets. ii Analyzing an original dataset based on a sample of paid and unpaid petitions disposed of during the 1976 through 1985 Terms of the Court, I find that IFP petitions are disproportionately criminal and prisoner civil rights cases, as opposed to civil cases, and they are less likely to present most indicia of certworthiness that have been identified in past studies. Moreover, I find that IFP petitions are more likely to be filed by pro se litigants (litigants representing themselves) rather than by attorneys. Finally, I find that certain issues--specifically minority rights issues, family law issues, and issues involving access to welfare benefits--are disproportionately represented on the IFP docket. These findings suggest that the cases on the IFP docket are at a disadvantage during the Court’s agenda-setting process and that this disadvantage may have implications for the Court’s attention to certain classes of legal issues. Dynamic analysis of the Court’s attention to IFP petitions over time indicates that the proportion of the Court’s plenary docket that is devoted to IFP petitions varies based on the Court’s ideological composition and the attention devoted to IFP petitions in the term immediately preceding. These findings suggest that the Court’s IFP docket is distinct from its paid docket, making comparison between the two dockets meaningful. Case-level multivariate analysis of the Court’s selection of paid and unpaid petitions indicates that IFP cases are less likely to be accepted for review even when analysis controls for the presence or absence of cue characteristics identified in prior studies. iii Moreover, the effects of such case characteristics vary between the paid and unpaid dockets, with the case characteristics having stronger effects in the context of the docket on which they are less prevalent. This finding indicates that the case characteristics identified as correlates of plenary review in past studies do, in fact, provide information to the Court during the agenda-setting process and are not merely correlates of some underlying quality of certworthiness. Ultimately, the analysis indicates that IFP petitions are at a disadvantage relative to the paid petitions during the agenda-setting process. That disadvantage takes two forms. First, the cue characteristics are more important to the selection of the IFP petitions and yet they are also less common; this interaction effect between the cue characteristics and IFP status is quite significant. Second, IFP status has an independent negative effect on the probability of the Court granting review; although controlling for the interaction effects causes that independent effect to lose statistical significance, the effect is nevertheless impressive when compared with the effect of other known cue characteristics. iv Dedicated to Judge Donovan W. Frank, for his tireless commitment to equality and justice v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my adviser, Lawrence Baum, for his unflagging support and patience. Mere words cannot express my indebtedness to him. I further wish to thank Elliot Slotnick for being there for me when the going got tough; the fortune cookie was right. Dean Lacy talked me down off of more than one methodological ledge, and his sense of humor was grounding during some fairly dark moments. Many people provided insight on sampling and statistical issues, including Jan Box-Steffensmeier, Herb Weisberg, Kevin Sweeney, and Brandon Bartels. The arduous task of data collection was made infinitely easier by the wonderful staff of the National Archives and Records Administration, especially archivist Robert Ellis; the reference staff at the Ohio State University Law Library; and Nancee Halling in the St. Paul branch of the Eighth Circuit Law Library. My family and my in-laws have all provided emotional support throughout this long process. My husband, Peter Hawkinson, made many sacrifices along the way and has been my inspiration. There never was a sweeter kismet. This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. I am also grateful for the financial support provided by a fellowship from the American Association of University Women. vi VITA January 19, 1970……………………Born - Zanesville, Ohio 1990…………………………………B.A. English, Psychology, University of Michigan 1994…………………………………M.P.P., J.D., College of William and Mary 1994-1996…………………………...Law Clerk, The Honorables Donovan W. Frank, Gary Pagliaccetti, and Robert Berger Sixth Judicial District, Virginia, Minnesota 1996-1999…………………………...Graduate Research and Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University 1999-2003…………………………...Law Clerk, The Honorable Donovan W. Frank U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota PUBLICATIONS 1. Neal Devins and Wendy L. Watson, eds. 1995. Federal Abortion Politics: A Documentary History. New York, N.Y.: Garland Publishing. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Political Science vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………………....v Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………..………vi Vita………………………………………………………………………………...…….vii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..xi List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………...xiii Chapters: 1. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Unpaid Docket…………...……………………..……1 Introduction………………………………..……………………………………...1 Background on IFP Status……………………...…………………………………9 Eligibility for IFP Status…………………………...…………………………….10 Benefits of IFP Status…………………………………...……………………….15 History of the IFP Docket…………………………………...…………………...16 2. The Court’s Case Selection Process……………………………………………..23 Introduction……………………………………………..…………………….….23 Goals in Supreme Court Agenda-Setting…………………..……………….……24 Constraints in Supreme Court Agenda-Setting………………..…………….…...28 Cognitive Task……………………………………………………..……….……30 Potential Cues to Certworthiness……………………………………..…….……37 Ideology of Decision Below………………………………………..……37 Lower Court Behavior…………………………………………………...39 The Parties: Attorney Representation and Solicitor General Involvement……………………………………………………………...41 Amicus Briefs……………………………………………………………46 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….47 3. Hypotheses and Data……………………………………………………………..49 Introduction……………………………………………………………...……….49 Cues in the Context of the IFP Docket: Hypotheses………………………..…...49 Data………………………………………………………………………………55 viii Population………………………………………………………………..55 Sampling…………………………………………………………………57 Coding……………………………………………………………………60 Identifying Information…………………………………………..60 Case Disposition (Dependent Variable)…...……………………..62 Case Characteristics……………………………………………...64 Petitioner Characteristics………………………………………...65 Responding Party………………………………………………...66 Other Parties and Participants…………………………................67 Decision Below…………………………………………………..69 Rule 10 Factors…………………………………………………..71 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….72 4. A Descriptive Analysis of the Court’s IFP Docket………………………………75 Introduction…………………………...………………………………………….75 Types of Cases on the IFP Docket………...……………………………………..77 Representation………………………………...………………………………….84 Participation by Other Parties……………………...…………………………….85 Lower Court Behavior…………………………………...………………………88 Rule 10 Considerations……………………………………...…………………...89 Conclusion………………………………………………………...……………..95 5. The Supreme Court’s Selection of IFP Petitions………………………………...99 Introduction………………………………………………...…………………….99 Selection of IFP Cases in the Aggregate………………………...……………….99 Dynamic Analysis with Proportion of Cases Filed…………….....…….101 Dynamic Analysis with Proportion of Cases on Docket…………….....107 Implications…………………………………………………………….110
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Empirical Studies of Civil Procedure and Courts
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2010 Process, People, Power and Policy: Empirical Studies of Civil Procedure and Courts Carrie Menkel-Meadow Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Bryant Garth Southwestern Law School, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/181 Carrie Menkel-Meadow & Bryant Garth, Process, People, Power and Policy: Empirical Studies of Civil Procedure and Courts, in OXFORD HANDBOOK OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL RESEARCH (Peter Cane and Herbert Kritzer, eds., forthcoming). This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, Courts Commons, Law and Society Commons, and the Litigation Commons GEORGETOWN LAW Faculty Publications Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 10-04 January 2010 Process, People, Power and Policy: Empirical Studies of Civil Procedure and Courts in OXFORD HANDBOOK OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL RESEARCH (Peter Cane and Herbert Kritzer, eds., forthcoming) Carrie Menkel-Meadow Bryant Garth Professor of Law Dean, Southwestern Law School Georgetown University Law Center Director, American Bar Foundation [email protected] [email protected] This paper can be downloaded without charge from: Scholarly Commons: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/181 SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1537448 Posted with permission of the author Process, People, Power and Policy: Empirical Studies of Civil Procedure and Courts Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Bryant Garth For Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research (Peter Cane and Herbert Kritzer, editors, Oxford University Press) I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cert Pool and Policy on the US Supreme Court
    Innocuous Time-Saver or Counter-majoritarian Loophole? The Cert Pool and Policy on the U.S. Supreme Court∗ Daniel Lemperty Version 3.2 Abstract Since 1972, the certiorari petitions that arrive at the Supreme Court are randomly assigned for review to one of the five to eight justices who are members of the Supreme Court cert pool. Justices who are not members of the pool still review each petition. Thus, some petitions for review are evaluated by as few as two justices (or their clerks), and the rest of the Court relies on the recommendations of these justices. This practice has been criticized for its potentially counter-majoritarian implications. Formalizing the communication between the better-informed justices who review a petition and the rest of the Court as a sender-receiver game, I assess the circumstances under which the Court median's preferred policy outcome is subverted. Then, I analyze the decision to opt out of the cert pool. In some equilibria, the cert pool can move policy away from the median justice; in others|specifically, those in which one justice on each side of the median opts out of the cert pool|it is predicted to have no influence. Empirical patterns of cert pool membership in the last eleven natural courts are consistent with equilibrium predictions. ∗For helpful questions, discussion, and suggestions, I thank participants of the Ohio State Political Science Department Research in American Politics Workshop, where a previous version was presented. yPh.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, 2086 Derby Hall, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, Email: [email protected] Introduction The Supreme Court cert pool is a relatively little-noted institution that, more than any other Court practice, has the potential to set radically nonmajoritarian legal policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Clerk and Justice: the Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OpenCommons at University of Connecticut University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Connecticut Law Review School of Law 2008 Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge Laura Krugman Ray Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review Recommended Citation Ray, Laura Krugman, "Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge" (2008). Connecticut Law Review. 5. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/5 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 41 NOVEMBER 2008 NUMBER 1 Article Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge LAURA KRUGMAN RAY Justice John Paul Stevens, now starting his thirty-third full term on the Supreme Court, served as law clerk to Justice Wiley B. Rutledge during the Court’s 1947 Term. That experience has informed both elements of Stevens’s jurisprudence and aspects of his approach to his institutional role. Like Rutledge, Stevens has written powerful opinions on issues of individual rights, the Establishment Clause, and the reach of executive power in wartime. Stevens has also, like Rutledge, been a frequent author of dissents and concurrences, choosing to express his divergences from the majority rather than to vote in silence. Within his chambers, Stevens has in many ways adopted his own clerkship experience in preference to current models. Unlike the practices of most of his colleagues, Stevens hires fewer clerks, writes his own first drafts, and shares certiorari decisionmaking with his clerks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court's Political Docket
    The Supreme Court’s Political Docket: How Ideology and the Chief Justice Control the Court’s Agenda and Shape Law Benjamin Johnson* The Supreme Court is unique among federal courts in that it chooses— using the writ of certiorari—which cases it will decide. Justice Brennan once noted that this discretionary power is “second to none in importance.” This article examines the institutional politics behind this certiorari process. Specifically, it uses an original dataset of justices’ agenda-setting votes from 1986-1993 to empirically measure the role of justices’ policy preferences at certiorari. The results suggest a somewhat complicated story. First, justices often vote based solely on their policy goals. This is consistent with existing studies of judicial decision-making that find such preferences are incredibly influential when justices decide cases on the merits. The surprise is the difference in the sizes of the effects. Policy preferences seem to play a surprisingly smaller—though still significant—role at certiorari. Second, in contrast to existing qualitative accounts, the data suggest some justices queue off of the Chief Justice’s vote giving the Chief’s vote outsized influence. After analyzing the effects of politics at certiorari, the article considers possible reforms that might lessen or at least channel the effects of justices’ policy preferences. To that end, the article offers a range of proposals to reform the certiorari process to promote transparency, to improve efficiency, and to enhance the Court’s legitimacy. * Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Politics, Princeton University; J.D., Yale Law School. Thanks are due to Bruce Ackerman, Ian Ayers, Brandice Canes-Wrone, Charles Cameron, Miguel de Figueiredo, Jim Fleming, David Forte, Heather Gerken, Leslie Gerwin, Paul Kahn, Al Klevorick, Harold Hongju Koh, Noah Messing, Anna Offit, Mark Osler, Nick Parrillo, H.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Clerking for a Retired Supreme Court Justice—My Experience of Being “Shared” Among Five Justices in One Term
    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 2020 Clerking for a Retired Supreme Court Justice—My Experience of Being “Shared” Among Five Justices in One Term Rory Little Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Clerking for a Retired Supreme Court Justice—My Experience of Being “Shared” Among Five Justices in One Term Rory K. Little* INTRODUCTION In 1932, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. retired but continued to employ Mark DeWolfe Howe as his law clerk.1 A tradition of retired U.S. Supreme Court Justices2 employing a law clerk has continued, apparently intermittently, since that time.3 At some point, this practice grew to embrace * Visiting Professor, Yale Law School, Fall 2019. Professor of Law, Joseph W. Cotchett Chair, University of California, Hastings College of Law. Thanks to Professor Jeff Rosen for organizing the first-ever reunion for former Supreme Court clerks and the accompanying Clerks at 100 Academic Symposium at the George Washington University Law School on October 4, 2019, for which this Essay was initially written. See Clerks at 100 Academic Symposium, NAT’L CONST. CTR., https://constitutioncenter.org/debate/past- programs/clerks-at-100-academic-symposium [https://perma.cc/VFQ6-G87B]. I’m particularly grateful for helpful thoughts and sources from Professor Justin Driver, who clerked for retired Justice O’Connor in the 2006 October Term and was shared with the Breyer Chambers; Professor Owen Fiss, who clerked for Justice Brennan in the 1965 Term; Professor John C. Jeffries Jr., who clerked for Justice Powell in the 1973 Term; Judge Gerald Lynch, who clerked for Justice Brennan in the 1976 Term; Carol Lee, who clerked for Justice Stevens in the 1982 Term; Luke Hendrickson, UC Hastings College of Law ‘20; and Kallie Klein, Yale Law School ‘21.
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining the Supreme Court's Shrinking Docket
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 53 (2011-2012) Issue 4 Article 4 March 2012 Explaining the Supreme Court's Shrinking Docket Ryan J. Owens David A. Simon Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Courts Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Repository Citation Ryan J. Owens and David A. Simon, Explaining the Supreme Court's Shrinking Docket, 53 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1219 (2012), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol53/iss4/4 Copyright c 2012 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr EXPLAINING THE SUPREME COURT’S SHRINKING DOCKET RYAN J. OWENS* & DAVID A. SIMON** ABSTRACT In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has decided fewer cases than at any other time in its recent history. Scholars and practitioners alike have criticized the drop in the Court’s plenary docket. Some even believe that the Court has reneged on its duty to clarify and unify the law. A host of studies examine potential reasons for the Court’s change in docket size, but few rely on an empirical analysis of this change and no study examines the correlation between ideological homogeneity and docket size. In a comprehensive study, the authors analyze ideological and contextual factors to determine the conditions that are most likely to influence the size of the plenary docket. Drawing on empirical data from every Supreme Court Term between 1940 and 2008, the authors find that both ideological and contextual factors have led to the Court’s declining plenary docket.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Supreme Court Law Clerks Who Clerk for Multiple Justices Nudge Them to Agree?
    ARTICLE APPRENTICES OF TWO SORCERERS: DO SUPREME COURT LAW CLERKS WHO CLERK FOR MULTIPLE JUSTICES NUDGE THEM TO AGREE? * Michael P. Kenstowicz INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 35 I. SURVEYING THE HISTORY OF SUPREME COURT CLERKSHIPS AND THE DEBATE OVER CLERKS’ PROPER ROLES AT THE COURT ........................... 38 A. The Evolution of Supreme Court Law Clerks’ Roles in Chambers ................................................................................................ 39 B. The Debate over Law Clerks’ Influence on their Justices ................... 41 II. EXAMINING THE VOTES OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES EMPLOYING A LAW CLERK DURING DIFFERENT TERMS .................................................... 43 A. Empirical Project .................................................................................... 43 TABLE 1: SUPREME COURT LAW CLERKS WHO CLERKED ON THE SUPREME COURT FOR TWO JUSTICES, BOTH OF WHOM SERVED ON THE COURT CONCURRENTLY, 1946–2015..................................................... 44 TABLE 2: LAW CLERKS WHO CLERKED ON THE SUPREME COURT FOR ONE JUSTICE AND ON THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR A JUDGE LATER APPOINTED TO THE SUPREME COURT, BOTH OF WHOM SERVED ON THE COURT CONCURRENTLY, 1946–2015 ................................ 45 FIGURE A......................................................................................................... 47 B. Findings ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: the Benefits of Self-Regulation
    Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: The Benefits of Self-Regulation Tom R. Tyler*l In this lecture I arguefor the value of a self-regulatory approach to law and criminaljustice. I do so by first describing and critiquing the dominant approach to regulation in use today: deterrence. I suggest that in practice this model is costly and minimally effective in securing compliance with the law and motivating the acceptance of decisions made by police officers and judges. I then outline a different, self- regulatory model which focuses on engaging people's values as a basis for motivating voluntary deference to the law. I review empirical research suggesting that this strategy is both viable and more desirable than current sanction-based approaches. My argument is that this approach is particularly important when the goal is voluntary compliance with the law and/or willing cooperation with legal authorities. The traditional objective of the law and of the actions of legal authorities is to gain public compliance with the law. This includes compliance in the context of the particular decisions made by legal authorities such as judges and police officers and compliance with the law in everyday life. In both cases, a key societal objective is to bring people's behavior in line with the law (Tyler 2006d). And, in both cases, public compliance cannot be taken for granted. The problems involved in obtaining compliance with the law in everyday life are illustrated through compliance issues involving a wide variety of behaviors, ranging from traffic laws (Tyler 2006d) to drug laws (MacCoun 1993), illegal immigration (Cornelius and Salehyan 2007), and the payment of taxes (Braithwaite 2003; Kornhauser 2007; McGraw and Scholz 1991; Wenzel 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Section 4: Advocacy Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2006 Section 4: Advocacy Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 4: Advocacy" (2006). Supreme Court Preview. 235. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/235 Copyright c 2006 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview IV. Advocacy In This Section: "In the Roberts Court, There's More Room for Argument" p. 165 Linda Greenhouse "The Letterman Justice" p. 167 DahliaLithwick "2005-06 Supreme Court: The Advocates' View" p. 169 Tony Mauro "A Supreme Court Conversation" p. 171 Walter Dellinger "Numbers That Don't Befit the Court" p. 172 Margaretand RichardCordray "Fewer grants for next Term" p. 174 Lyle Denniston "Roberts Dips Toe Into Cert Pool" p. 175 Tony Mauro "Commentary: The Court's Caseload" p. 176 Lyle Denniston 164 "In the Roberts Court, There's More Room for Argument" The New York Times May 3, 2006 Linda Greenhouse This is the week that the Supreme Court, was on the court, he recalled, she asked the done with its regular argument sessions, first question so quickly and so predictably enters the stretch run. that there was little point in preparing an elegant opening argument. "Now you might While it is too soon for substantive get three or four minutes" without appraisals of the first year of the Roberts interruption, he said.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Effectiveness of Procedural Justice Training for Police Officers: Evidence from the Mexico City Police
    Assessing the Effectiveness of Procedural Justice Training for Police Officers: Evidence from the Mexico City Police ∗ RODRIGO CANALES MARINA GONZALEZ MAGAÑA Yale University Innovations for Poverty Action JUAN FRANCISCO SANTINI ALEXIS CHEREM MAUS Innovations for Poverty Action Innovations for Poverty Action September 29, 2020 DRAFT. PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE. COMMENTS WELCOME Abstract Organizations face the dilemma of how to ensure that their agents use discretion productively in complex situations while at the same time complying routinely and repeatedly with the organization’s standards and processes. No organization confronts this plight more strongly than policing institutions, where misconduct and bad decisions by their “street level bureau- crats” can have large negative consequences. This paper investigates if police officers can be trained effectively to incorporate the principles of procedural justice in their interactions with citizens. The procedural justice framework has been proven to increase citizen trust and build police legitimacy. In collaboration with the Mexico City police, we implemented a random- ized controlled trial with 1,854 officers to measure whether training changed their perceptions and behavioral intentions to policing, and the potential mechanisms behind any observed ef- fects. We find significant, substantive, and positive effects of the training across all measures of the procedural justice model. Our research yields insights into critical elements to consider in organizational training programs, including managerial alignment with the objectives of the training and a consideration of employees’ perceptions of the extent to which their work is understood by others. ∗Corresponding author: [email protected] 1 Introduction A fundamental question for any organization is how to ensure that its employees “do the right thing,” by always pursuing the organization’s interests and goals in their behaviors.
    [Show full text]
  • Opposing Cert: a Practitioner’S Guide
    Opposing Cert: A Practitioner’s Guide Scott L. Nelson Public Citizen Litigation Group Washington, DC INTRODUCTION It was a tough case, but you pulled it off in the court of appeals. There were some tricky precedents from other circuits that needed distinguishing, and the court had to go out on a limb a little bit to rule your way, but you drew a good panel and won in a split decision. The majority opinion gave you all you could hope for, plus a little more. There was a strong dissent, but as William Rehnquist once said, statements in a dissenting opinion are just that – statements in a dissenting opinion. Sure, the majority might have come up with some better answers to the dissent on a couple of points, but who cares? The bottom line is you won. Ninety days later, when the petition for certiorari comes in over the transom, things look a little different. Your opponent – now represented by a former Solicitor General of the United States – says that the panel’s opinion conflicts with decisions of three other circuits and, if allowed to stand, will significantly distort an important area of federal law. And it looks so convincing, all printed up in that fancy Supreme Court format. Suddenly you’re almost wishing you had hit a solid single in the court of appeals instead of a grand slam. You’ve never had a case in the U.S. Supreme Court before. What do you do now? For starters, don’t panic. Practice before the Supreme Court, though different in a number of ways from practice in the lower courts, needn’t be mysterious or intimidating.
    [Show full text]
  • Impressing Organizational Justice Rules Based on Information Technology (Case Study: Telecommunication Company)
    International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences Vol. 3, No. 4, October 2013, pp. 197–207 E-ISSN: 2225-8329, P-ISSN: 2308-0337 © 2013 HRMARS www.hrmars.com Impressing Organizational Justice Rules Based on Information Technology (Case study: Telecommunication Company) Mashala Valikhani DEHAGHANI1 Faeze Sadat MIRHADI2 1 Islamic Azad university, Dehaghan Branch, Isfahan, Iran, Tel:+98-913-321-6535; Fax:+98-3222627311 2Department of Administration Management, Islamic Azad University, Dehaghan Branch, Isfahan, Iran, E-mail: [email protected] Tel:+98-913-553-0153;Fax:+98-3222627311 Abstract In today's competitive world, information technology is a wide field and has enabled organizations across the world to work in an efficient manner. Organizations are constantly seeking new ways to maximize the effect of organizational justice between their employees. Main purpose of this study is to study the effect of information technology in organization for making procedural justice. In this research, we used field research technique and for gathering data collection used questionnaires. Statistical population was employees of Telecommunication Company of Isfahan that they are 600 employees. Then, distributed 234 questionnaires based on convenience sampling. Method of research was T-value for analyzing, we used spss software. The result of this research indicates the meaningful and direct relationship between information technology and procedural justice in Telecommunication Company of Isfahan. Key words Information technology, organizational justice, Procedural Justice, Telecommunication Company, Iran DOI: 10.6007/IJARAFMS/v3-i4/391 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARAFMS/v3-i4/391 1. Introduction Justice or fairness refers to the idea that an action or decision is morally right, which may be defined according to ethics, religion, fairness, equity, or law.
    [Show full text]