Skip to main content Accessibility help

Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedents at the U.S. Supreme Court

  • James H. Fowler (a1), Timothy R. Johnson (a2), James F. Spriggs (a3), Sangick Jeon (a4) and Paul J. Wahlbeck (a5)...


We construct the complete network of 26,681 majority opinions written by the U.S. Supreme Court and the cases that cite them from 1791 to 2005. We describe a method for using the patterns in citations within and across cases to create importance scores that identify the most legally relevant precedents in the network of Supreme Court law at any given point in time. Our measures are superior to existing network-based alternatives and, for example, offer information regarding case importance not evident in simple citation counts. We also demonstrate the validity of our measures by showing that they are strongly correlated with the future citation behavior of state courts, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. In so doing, we show that network analysis is a viable way of measuring how central a case is to law at the Court and suggest that it can be used to measure other legal concepts.



Hide All
Albert, Reka, and Barabasi, Albert-Laszlo. 2002. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics 74: 4797.
Aldisert, Rugero J. 1990. Precedent: What it is and what it isn't; when do we kiss it and when do we kill it? Pepperdine Law Review 17: 605–36.
Allen, Carleton Kemp. 1964. Law in the making. 7th ed. New York: Clarendon Press.
Biskupic, Joan, and Witt, Elder. 1997. Congressional quarterly's guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Bonacich, Phillip. 1972. Factoring and weighing approaches to clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 2: 113–20.
Bonacich, Phillip. 1987. Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology 92: 1170–82.
Caldeira, Gregory A. 1985. The transmission of legal precedent: A study of state Supreme Courts. American Political Science Review 79: 178–93.
Carmines, Edward G., and Zeller, Richard A. 1979. Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chandler, Seth J. 2005. The network structure of Supreme Court jurisprudence. In public law and legal Theory series. Report 2005-W-01, 26. Houston, TX: University of Houston Law Center.
Cross, Frank B., Smith, Thomas A., and Tomarchio, Antonio. 2006. Determinants of cohesion in the supreme court's network of precedents. San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 07-67. Social Science Research Network: (accessed May 15, 2007).
Douglas, William O. 1979 [1949]. Stare decisis. In Courts, judges, and politics: An introduction to the judicial process, ed. Murphy, Walter F. and Herman Pritchett, C., 6671. New York: Random House.
Dworkin, Ronald M. 1986. Law's empire. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Epstein, Lee, and Segal, Jeffrey A. 2000. Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science 44: 6683.
Fowler, James H. 2006. Connecting the Congress: A study of cosponsorship networks. Political Analysis 14: 456–87.
Freeman, Linton C. 1979. Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1: 215–39.
Friedman, Lawrence M., Kagan, Robert A., Cartwright, Bliss, and Wheeler, Stanton. 1981. State Supreme Courts: A century of style and citation. Stanford Law Review 33: 773818.
Gibson, James L. 1997. United States Supreme Court judicial database, phase II: 1953-1993. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Hall, Kermit L. 1999. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hansford, Thomas G., and Spriggs, James F. II. 2006. The politics of precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hellman, Arthur D. 1983. Error correction, lawmaking, and the Supreme Court's exercise of discretionary review. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 44: 795877.
Holmes, Oliver Wendell Jr. 1991 [1881]. The common law. New York: Dover Publications.
Johnson, Charles A. 1987. Law, politics, and judicial decision making: Lower federal court uses of Supreme Court decisions. Law and Society Review 21: 325–40.
Jones, Harry W. 1975. Our uncommon common law. Tennessee Law Review 42: 443–63.
Kempin, Frederick G. 1959. Precedent and stare decisis: The critical years, 1800 to 1850. American Journal of Legal History 3: 2854.
Klein, David E. 2002. Making law in the United States Courts of Appeals. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kleinberg, Jon M. 1999. Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 46(5): 604632.
Kosma, Montgomery N. 1998. Measuring the influence of Supreme Court justices. Journal of Legal Studies 27: 333–72.
Landes, William M., Lessig, Lawrence, and Solimine, Michael E. 1998. Judicial influence: A citation analysis of federal courts of appeals judges. Journal of Legal Studies 27: 271332.
Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A. 1976. Legal precedent: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Law and Economics 19: 249307.
Levi, Edward H. 1949. An introduction to legal reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Cross, Frank B. 2005. Empirically testing Dworkin's chain novel theory: Studying the path of precedent. New York University Law Review 80: 1156–206.
Maltz, Earl. 1988. The nature of precedent. North Carolina Law Review 66: 367–92.
McIntosh, Wayne, Cousins, Ken, Rose, James, Simon, Steve, Evans, Mike, Karnes, Kimberly, McTague, John, and Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna. 2005. Using information technology to examine the communication of precedent: Initial findings and lessons from the CITE-IT project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Assocation, Oakland, CA.
Merryman, John Henry. 1954. The authority of authority: What the California Supreme Court cited in 1950. Stanford Law Review 6: 613–73.
Merryman, John Henry. 1977. Toward a theory of citations: An empirical study of the citation practice of the California Supreme Court in 1950, 1960, and 1970. Southern California Law Review 50: 381428.
Post, David G., and Eisen, Michael B. 2000. How long is the coastline of the law? Thoughts on the fractal nature of legal systems. Journal of Legal Studies 29: 545–84.
Powell, Lewis F. Jr. 1990. Stare decisis and judicial restraint. Washington and Lee Law Review 47: 281–90.
Proctor, C. H., and Loomis, C. P. 1951. Analysis of sociometric data. In Research methods in social relations, ed. Holland, P.W. and Leinhardt, S., 561–86. New York: Dryden Press.
Rapp, Cynthia. 2004. A collection of in chambers opinions by the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Washington, DC: Green Bag Press.
Redner, S. 1998. How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. European Physical Journal B 4: 131–4.
Richards, Mark J., and Kritzer, Herbert M. 2002. Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review 96: 305–20.
Schauer, Frederick. 1987. Precedent. Stanford Law Review 39: 571605.
Sirico, Louis J. Jr. 2000. The citing of law reviews by the Supreme Court, 1971-1999. Indiana Law Journal 75: 1009–39.
Spriggs, James F. II, and Hansford, Thomas G. 2000. Measuring legal change: The reliability and validity of Shepard's citations. Political Research Quarterly 53: 327–41.
Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1998. The development of a legal rule: The federal common law of public nuisance. Law & Society Review 32: 613–37.
Wald, Patricia M. 1995. The rhetoric and the results of rhetoric: Judicial writings. University of Chicago Law Review 62: 1371–419.
Wasby, Stephen L., Peterson, Steven, Schubert, James, and Schubert, Glendon. 1992. The per curiam opinion: Its nature and functions. Judicature 76: 2938.
Wasserman, Stanley, and Faust, Katherine. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Political Analysis
  • ISSN: 1047-1987
  • EISSN: 1476-4989
  • URL: /core/journals/political-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed