Document Type
Article
Publication Title
Boston University Law Review
Abstract
State Supreme Courts (“SSCs”) exercise two major sources of authority: mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction. This Article assesses 7055 SSC cases decided with written opinions in 2003 to provide the first comprehensive study of the relation between jurisdictional source and SSC performance. Approximately half of the cases were discretionary and half were mandatory. Jurisdictional source is associated with several important aspects of SSC behavior. Aggregated across states, courts reversed 51.6% of discretionary jurisdiction cases, compared to 28.1% of mandatory cases. The jurisdictional source also affected dissent rates: 26.7% of discretionary cases generated at least one dissenting opinion, compared to 18.8% of mandatory cases. Striking interstate variation overlays the mandatory-discretionary distinction. Reversal rates in SSC discretionary jurisdiction cases ranged from 88% in Texas to 31% in Ohio. Across courts with substantial mandatory jurisdiction, reversal rates ranged from 68% in Arizona to 13% in Florida and 9% in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. These results are consistent with models that account for state and case category effects. Surprisingly, after controlling for state and case category, discretionary case opinions are shorter than mandatory case opinions. The evidence suggests that studies of SSC outcomes, dissent patterns, judicial policy preferences, and other characteristics should take account of jurisdictional source.
First Page
1451
Volume
89
Publication Date
2009
Recommended Citation
Eisenberg, Theodore and Miller, Geoffrey P., "Reversal, Dissent, and Variability in State Supreme Couts: The Centrality of Jurisdictional Source" (2009). Faculty Articles. 776.
https://gretchen.law.nyu.edu/fac-articles/776
