Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T09:58:03.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2017

Stephen B. Burbank  and
Sean Farhang
Stephen B. Burbank
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Sean Farhang
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Rights and Retrenchment
The Counterrevolution against Federal Litigation
 , pp. 249 - 266
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aberbach, Joel D. Keeping a Watchful Eye: The Politics of Congressional Oversight. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1990.Google Scholar
Arnold, Richard S. “Judges and the Public.” Litigation 4 (1983): 5–7.Google Scholar
Bagenstos, Samuel R. “Who Is Responsible for the Stealth Assault on Civil Rights?” Michigan Law Review 114 (2016): 893–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, Vanessa A. and Gangl, Amy. “Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the Media's Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on Perceptions of Fairness.” Political Psychology Review 27 (2006): 597–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Jeb. “Courts and the Puzzle of Institutional Stability and Change: Administrative Drift and Judicial Innovation in the Case of Asbestos.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (2008): 636–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Jeb and Burke, Thomas F.. How Policy Shapes Politics: Rights, Courts, Litigation and the Struggle over Injury Compensation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beisner, John H. “Discovering a Better Way: The Need for Effective Civil Litigation Reform.” Duke Law Journal 60 (2010): 547–96.Google Scholar
Bickel, Alexander M. The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962.Google Scholar
Bierschbach, Richard A. and Stein, Alex. “Overenforcement.” Georgetown Law Journal 93 (2005): 1743–81.Google Scholar
Bradt, Andrew. “A Radical Proposal: The Multidistrict Litigation Act of 1968.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 165 (forthcoming 2016).Google Scholar
Brady, David W. and Volden, Craig. Revolving Gridlock Politics and Policy from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, 2nd edn. Boulder: Westview Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Brown, Winifred R. Federal Rulemaking: Problems and Possibilities. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center, 1981.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “The Rules Enabling Act of 1934.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 130 (1982): 1015–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “Sanctions in the Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Some Questions About Power.” Hofstra Law Review 11 (1983): 997–1012.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “Afterwords: A Response to Professor Hazard and a Comment on Marrese.” Cornell Law Review 659 (1985): 659–65.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “Proposals to Amend Rule 68 – Time to Abandon Ship.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 19 (1986): 425–40.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “The Costs of Complexity.” Michigan Law Review 85 (1987): 1463–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “The Transformation of American Civil Procedure: The Example of Rule 11.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 137 (1989a): 1925–67.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “Hold the Corks: A Comment on Paul Carrington's ‘Substance’ and ‘Procedure’ in the Rules Enabling Act.” Duke Law Journal (1989b): 1012–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “Ignorance and Procedural Law Reform: A Call for a Moratorium.” Brooklyn Law Review 59 (1993): 841–56.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “Implementing Procedural Change: Who, How, Why, and When?” Alabama Law Review 49 (1997): 221–50.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “Semtek, Forum Shopping, and Federal Common Law.” Notre Dame Law Review 77 (2002): 1027–55.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “Procedure, Politics and Power: The Role of Congress.” Notre Dame Law Review 79 (2004a): 1677–744.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “Vanishing Trials and Summary Judgment in Federal Civil Cases: Drifting towards Bethlehem or Gomorrah?” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 1 (2004b): 591–626.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “Judicial Accountability to the Past, Present, and Future: Precedent, Politics and Power.” University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review 28 (2005): 19–62.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “Aggregation on the Couch: The Strategic Uses of Ambiguity and Hypocrisy.” Columbia Law Review 106 (2006a): 1924–54.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “Alternative Career Resolution II: Changing the Tenure of Supreme Court Justices.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154 (2006b): 1511–50.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “Judicial Independence, Judicial Accountability, and Interbranch Relations.” Georgetown Law Journal 95 (2007): 909–27.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 in Historical Context: A Preliminary View.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 156 (2008): 1439–552.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “Pleading and the Dilemmas of Modern American Procedure.” Judicature 93 (2009): 109–20.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. “On the Study of Judicial Behaviors: Of Law, Politics, Science, and Humility.” In What's Law Got to Do with It? What Judges Do, Why They Do It, and What's at Stake, edited by Geyh, Charles Gardner, 41–70. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. and Farhang, Sean. “Litigation Reform: An Institutional Approach.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 162 (2014): 1543–618.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. and Farhang, Sean. “Federal Court Rulemaking and Litigation Reform: An Institutional Approach.” Nevada Law Journal 15 (2015): 1559–96.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. and Farhang, Sean. “The Subterranean Counterrevolution: The Supreme Court, the Media, and Litigation Reform.” DePaul Law Review 65 (2016a): 293–321.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. and Farhang, Sean. “Reforming Civil Rights Litigation: Why the Court Succeeded Where Congress Failed.” In The Rights Revolution Revisited, edited by Dodd, Linda. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016b.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B., Farhang, Sean, and Kritzer, Herbert. “Private Enforcement.” Lewis and Clark Law Review 17 (2013): 637–722.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. and Friedman, Barry. “Reconsidering Judicial Independence.” In Judicial Independence at the Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by Burbank, Stephen B. and Friedman, Barry, 9–42. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B., Plager, S. Jay, and Ablavsky, Gregory. “Leaving the Bench, 1970–2009: The Choices Federal Judges Make, What Influences Those Choices, and Their Consequences.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 161 (2012): 1–102.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. and Subrin, Stephen N.. “Litigation and Democracy: Restoring a Realistic Prospect of Trial.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 46 (2011): 399–414.Google Scholar
Burbank, Stephen B. and Wolff, Tobias Barrington. “Redeeming the Missed Opportunities of Shady Grove.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 159 (2010): 17–76.Google Scholar
Burger, Warren. “The State of the Judiciary.” American Bar Association Journal 56 (1970): 929–34.Google Scholar
Burger, Warren. “Address Before the Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference.” Journal of Public Law 21 (1972): 271–80.Google Scholar
Burger, Warren. “Agenda for 2000 A.D. – A Need for Systematic Anticipation.” In The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future, edited by Levin, A. Leo and Wheeler, Russell R., 23–35. St. Paul: West Publishing Co, 1979.Google Scholar
Burger, Warren. “Isn't there a Better Way?” American Bar Association Journal 68 (1982): 274–7.Google Scholar
Burger, Warren. “Using Arbitration to Achieve Justice.” The Arbitration Journal 40 (1985): 3–6.Google Scholar
Burke, Thomas. Lawyers, Lawsuits, and Legal Rights: The Battle over Litigation in American Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Calabresi, Steven C. and Lindgren, James. “Term Limits for the Supreme Court: Life Tenure Reconsidered.” Harvard Journal of Law and Social Policy 29 (2006): 769–877.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A. “Courts and Public Opinion.” In The American Courts: A Critical Assessment, edited by John, B. Gates and Charles, A. Johnson, 303–34. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A. and James, L. Gibson. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 36 (1992): 635–64.Google Scholar
Cameron, A. Colin and Trivedi, Pravin K.. Regression Analysis of Court Data, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Carrington, Paul D. “Renovating Discovery.” Alabama Law Review 49 (1997): 51–78.Google Scholar
Carrington, Paul D. “Politics and Civil Procedure Rulemaking: Reflections on Experience.” Duke Law Journal 60 (2010): 597–667.Google Scholar
Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Closing the Courthouse Doors to Civil Rights Litigants.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 5 (2003): 537–57.Google Scholar
Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Closing the Courthouse Doors.” Denver University Law Review 90 (2012): 317–30.Google Scholar
Chen, Anthony S. The Fifth Freedom: Jobs, Politics, and Civil Rights in the United States, 1941–1972. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Christenson, Dino P. and Glick, David M.. “Chief Justice Roberts's Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court's Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (2015): 403–18.Google Scholar
Chutkow, Dawn. “The Chief Justice as Executive: Judicial Conference Committee Appointments.” Journal of Law and Courts 2 (2014): 301–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Tom C. “Foreword (1969).” In 4 Federal Practice and Procedure, edited by Wright, Charles Alan, Miller, Arthur R., and Steinman, Adam N., xvii–xx. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 2015.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom S. The Limits of Judicial Independence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Coffee, John C. Jr. Entrepreneurial Litigation: Its Rise, Fall, and Future. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr. “Interest Groups and Their Influence on Judicial Policy.” In New Directions in Judicial Politics, edited by McGuire, Kevin T., 221–37. New York: Routledge, 2012.Google Scholar
Cooper, Edward H. “Revising Civil Rule 56: Judge Mark R. Kravitz and the Rules Enabling Act.” Lewis and Clark Law Review 18 (2014): 591–614.Google Scholar
Council for Public Interest Law. Balancing the Scales of Justice: Financing Public Interest Law in America. Washington, DC: Council on Public Interest Law, 1976.Google Scholar
Cox, Adam B. and Miles, Thomas J.. “Judging the Voting Rights Act.” Columbia Law Review 108 (2008): 1–54.Google Scholar
Cramton, Roger C. “Crisis in Legal Services for the Poor.” Villanova Law Review 26 (1981): 521–56.Google Scholar
Cross, Frank B. “Law Is Politics.” In What's Law Got to Do with It? What Judges Do, Why They Do It, and What's at Stake, edited by Geyh, Charles Gardner, 92–113. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Cushman, Barry. “Mr. Dooley and Mr. Gallup: Public Opinion and Constitutional Change in the 1930s.” Buffalo Law Review 50 (2002): 7–102.Google Scholar
Davis, Richard. Decisions and Images: The Supreme Court and the Press. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1994.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker.” Journal of Public Law 6 (1957): 279–95.Google Scholar
Decker, Jefferson. “Lawyers for Reagan: The Conservative Litigation Movement and American Government, 1971–87.” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 2009.Google Scholar
Derfner, Armand. “Background and Origin of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Awards Act of 1976.” Urban Law 37 (2005): 653–62.Google Scholar
Derfner, Mary Frances. “One Giant Step: The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976.” Saint Louis University Law Journal 21 (1977): 441–51.Google Scholar
Devins, Neal. “Is Judicial Policymaking Countermajoritarian?” In Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective, edited by Miller, Mark C. and Barnes, Jeb, 189–201. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Dodd, Lynda G. “The Rights Revolution in the Age of Obama and Ferguson: Policing, the Rule of Law, and the Elusive Quest for Accountability.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (2015): 657–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, John J. III, and Siegelman, Peter. “The Changing Nature of Employment Discrimination Litigation.” Stanford Law Review 43 (1991): 983–1033.Google Scholar
Dunham, Kenneth F. “The Future of Court-Annexed Dispute Resolution is Mediation.” Jones Law Review 5 (2001): 35–49.Google Scholar
Easton, David. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wylie and Sons, 1965.Google Scholar
Ely, John Hart. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles R. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Knight, Jack, and Martin, Andrew D.. “Constitutional Interpretation from a Strategic Perspective.” In Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective, edited by Miller, Mark C. and Barnes, Jeb, 170–188. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, William, A. Landes, and Richard, A. Posner. “How Business Fares in the Supreme Court.” Minnesota Law Review 97 (2013a): 1431–73.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, William, A. Landes, and Richard, A. Posner. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013b.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, William, A. Landes, and Richard, A. Posner. “The Best for Last: The Timing of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.” Duke Law Journal 64 (2015): 991–1022.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Andrew, D. Martin. “Does Public Opinion Influence the Supreme Court? Possibly Yes (But We're Not Sure Why).” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 13 (2010): 263–82.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Jr. “Reneging on History – Playing the Court/Congress/President Civil Rights Game.” California Law Review 79 (1991a): 613–84.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Jr. “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions.” Yale Law Journal 101 (1991b): 331–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskridge, William and Ferejohn, John. “Virtual Logrolling: How the Court, Congress, and the States Multiply Rights.” Southern California Law Review 68 (1995): 1545–64.Google Scholar
Fallon, Richard H. Jr. “Legitimacy and the Constitution.” Harvard Law Review 118 (2005): 1787–853.Google Scholar
Farhang, Sean. The Litigation State: Public Regulation and Private Lawsuits in the U.S. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farhang, Sean. “Legislative-Executive Conflict and Private Statutory Litigation in the United States: Evidence from Labor, Civil Rights, and Environmental Law.” Law and Social Inquiry 37 (2012): 657–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farhang, Sean and Wawro, Gregory, “Institutional Dynamics on the U.S. Court of Appeals: Minority Representation under Panel Decision Making.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 20 (2004): 299–330.Google Scholar
Farley, John J. III. “Robin Hood Jurisprudence: The Triumph of Equity in American Tort Law.” Saint John's Law Review 65 (1991): 997–1021.Google Scholar
Firth, David. “Bias Reduction of Maximum Likelihood Estimates.” Biometrika 80 (1993): 27–38.Google Scholar
Flemming, Roy B. and Wood, B. Dan. “The Public and the Supreme Court: Individual Justice Responsiveness to American Policy Moods.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (1997): 1224–50.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles H. and Kosaki, Liane C.. “Media, Knowledge and Public Evaluations of the Supreme Court.” In Contemplating Courts, edited by Epstein, Lee, 352–66. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Franklin, David L. “What Kind of Business-Friendly Court – Explaining the Chamber of Commerce's Success at the Roberts Court.” Santa Clara Law Review 49 (2009): 1019–57.Google Scholar
Friedenthal, Jack. “The Rulemaking Power of the Supreme Court: A Contemporary Crisis.” Stanford Law Review 27 (1975): 673–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Barry. “Mediated Popular Constitutionalism.” Michigan Law Review 101 (2003): 2596–636.Google Scholar
Friedman, Barry. “History, Politics and Judicial Independence.” In Judicial Integrity, edited by Sajó, András, 99–114. Leiden: M. Nijhoff, 2004.Google Scholar
Friedman, Barry. The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2009.Google Scholar
Friedman, Barry and Anna, L. Harvey. “Electing the Supreme Court.” Indiana Law Journal 78 (2003): 123–51.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence. Total Justice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994.Google Scholar
Frymer, Paul. Black and Blue: African Americans, the Labor Movement, and the Decline of the Democratic Party. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. “Why the ‘Haves' Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law & Society Review 9 (1974): 95–160.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. “The Life and Times of the Big Six, or, the Federal Courts since the Good Old Days.” Wisconsin Law Review (1988): 921–54.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. “Planet of the Aps: Reflections on the Scale of Law and Its Users.” Buffalo Law Review 53 (2006): 1369–418.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. “More Lawyers than People: The Global Multiplication of Legal Professionals.” In The Paradox of Professionalism: Lawyers and the Possibility of Justice, edited by Cummings, Scott L., 68–89. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc and Henderson, William. “The Elastic Tournament: A Second Transformation of the Big Law Firm.” Stanford Law Review 60 (2008): 1867–920.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc and Luban, David. “Poetic Justice: Punitive Damage and Legal Pluralism.” American University Law Review 42 (1993): 1393–464.Google Scholar
Gardner, Paul J. “The Effect of Media Framing on Public Support for the Supreme Court” (January 9, 2015).Google Scholar
Gelbach, Jonah B. “Locking the Door to Discovery – Assessing the Effects of Twombly and Iqbal on Access to Discovery.” Yale Law Journal 121 (2012): 2270–345.Google Scholar
Gelbach, Jonah B. “Can the Dark Arts of the Dismal Science Shed Light on the Empirical Reality of Civil Procedure?” Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation 2 (2014): 223–65.Google Scholar
Gelbach, Jonah B. “Material Facts in the Debate over Twombly and Iqbal.” Stanford Law Review 68 (2016): 369–424.Google Scholar
George, Warren E. “Development of the Legal Services Corporation.” Cornell Law Review 61 (1976): 681–730.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. and Caldeira, Gregory A.. “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?” Law and Society Review 34 (2011): 195–219.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., and Baird, Vanessa A.. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review 92 (1998): 343–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., and Spence, Lester Kenyatta. “The Supreme Court and the U.S. Presidential Election of 2000: Wounds, Self-Inflicted or Otherwise?” British Journal of Political Science 33 (2003a): 535–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., and Spence, Lester Kenyatta. “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (2003b): 354–67.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. and Michael, J. Nelson. “Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?” American Journal of Political Science 59 (2015): 162–74.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. “How Political Parties Can Use Courts to Advance Their Agendas: Federal Courts in the United States 1875–1891.” American Political Science Review 96 (2002): 511–24.Google Scholar
Ginn, Martha H., Searles, Kathleen, and Jones, Amanda. “Vouching for the Court? How High Stakes Affect Knowledge and Support of the Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal 36 (2015): 163–79.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom. Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Goldman, Sheldon. Picking Federal Judges: Lower Court Selection from Roosevelt through Reagan. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Gordon, Robert W. “A New Role for Lawyers? Corporate Counsel after Enron.” University of Connecticut Law Review 35 (2003): 1185–216.Google Scholar
Gossett, William T., Segal, Bernard G., and Smith, Chesterfield. “Foreword.” In The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future, edited by Levin, A. Leo and Wheeler, Russell R., 7–16. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1979.Google Scholar
Graber, Mark. “The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary.” Studies in American Political Development 7 (1993): 35–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, William. Econometric Analysis, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Publishing, 2003.Google Scholar
Greve, Michael S. “Why ‘Defunding the Left’ Failed.” Public Interest 89 (1987): 91–106.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S. “Privatizing Risk Without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 98 (2004): 243–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haltom, William and McCann, Michael. Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Handler, Joel F., Ginsberg, Betsy, and Snow, Arthur. “The Public Interest Law Industry.” In Public Interest Law: An Economic and Institutional Analysis, edited by Weisbrod, Burton, 42–79. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Harvey, Anna and Friedman, Barry. “Pulling Punches: Congressional Constraints on the Supreme Court's Constitutional Rulings, 1987–2000.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 28 (2006): 247–80.Google Scholar
Hasen, Richard L. “End of the Dialogue: Political Polarization, the Supreme Court, and Congress.” Southern California Law Review 86 (2012): 205–61.Google Scholar
Hazard, Geoffery C., Gedid, John, and Solwe, Stephen “An Historical Analysis of the Binding Effect of Class Suits.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 146 (1998): 1849–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinz, John P., Nelson, Robert L., Sandefur, Rebecca L., and Laumann, Edward O.. Urban Lawyers: The New Social Structure of the Bar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, A. Leon Jr. “The Priority of Human Rights in Court Reform.” In The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future, edited by Levin, A. Leo and Wheeler, Russell R., 87–110. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1979.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, Patrick E. “Foreword.” Alabama Law Review 49 (1997): 4–6.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, Patrick E. “Iron Man of the Rules.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 46 (2013): 627–30.Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Hixson, Everett L. “All Losers Should Pay in Tennessee: How to Amend T.C.A. Section 20-12119 to Deter Meritless Claims.” University of Memphis Law Review 44 (2013): 183–228.Google Scholar
Ho, Daniel E. and Quinn, Kevin M.. “Did a Switch in Time Save Nine?” Journal of Legal Analysis 2 (2010): 69–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Valerie J. “The Supreme Court and Local Public Opinion.” American Political Science Review 94 (2000): 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Valerie J. Public Reaction to Supreme Court Decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrina, David J. “The Future of IOLTA: Has the Death Knell Been. Sounded for Mandatory IOLTA Programs?” Akron Law Review 32 (1999): 301–26.Google Scholar
Immergut, Ellen M. “The Rules of the Game: The Logic of Health Policy-Making.” In Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, edited by Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Frank, 57–89. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Jacobi, Tania. “The Role of Politics and Economics in Explaining Variation in Litigation Rates in the U.S. States.” Journal of Legal Studies 38 (2009): 205–33.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. “Partisan Polarization in Presidential Support: The Electoral Connection.” Congress and the Presidency 30 (2003): 1–36.Google Scholar
Joseph, Gregory P. “An Instinct for the Capillary.” Litigation 38 (2012): 9–10.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A. Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Kalven, Harry Jr. and Maurice, Rosenfield. “The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit.” University of Chicago Law Review 8 (1941): 684–721.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Benjamin. “Continuing Work of the Civil Committee: 1966 Amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (I).” Harvard Law Review 81 (1966): 356–416.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Benjamin. “A Prefatory Note.” Boston College Industrial and Commercial Law Review 10 (1969): 497–500.Google Scholar
Kaplow, Louis and Shavell, Steven. “Fairness versus Welfare.” Harvard Law Review 114 (2001): 961–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlan, Pamela S. “Disarming the Private Attorney General.” University of Illinois Law Review (2003): 183–210.Google Scholar
Katzmann, Robert A. Judging Statutes. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Keck, Thomas M. Judicial Politics in Polarized Times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Kersch, Ken I. “The Reconstruction of Constitutional Privacy Rights and the New American State.” Studies in American Political Development 16 (2002): 61–87.Google Scholar
Kessler, Daniel P. Regulation versus Litigation: Perspectives from Economics and Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Kirkham, Francis R. “Complex Litigation – Have Good Intentions Gone Awry?” In The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future, edited by Levin, A. Leo and Wheeler, Russell R., 209–20. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1979.Google Scholar
Klarman, Michael. “Rethinking the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Revolutions.” Virginia Law Review 82 (1996): 1–67.Google Scholar
Klonoff, Robert H. “The Death of Class Actions.” Washington University Law Review 90 (2013): 729–838.Google Scholar
Kravitz, Mark R., Levi, David F., Rosenthal, Lee H., and Scirica, Anthony J., “They Were Meant for Each Other: Professor Edward Cooper and The Rules Enabling Act.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 46 (2013): 495–526.Google Scholar
Krent, Harold J. “Explaining One-Way Fee Shifting.” Virginia Law Review 79 (1993): 2039–89.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. and Richards, Mark J.. “The Influence of Law in the Supreme Court's Search-and-Seizure Jurisprudence.” American Politics Research 33 (2005): 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, William M. and Posner, Richard A.. “An Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective.” Journal of Law and Economics 18 (1975): 875–901.Google Scholar
Law, Sylvia A. “In the Name of Federalism: The Supreme Court's Assault on Democracy and Civil Rights.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 70 (2002): 367–432.Google Scholar
Lazarus, Simon and Onek, Joseph. “The Regulators and the People.” Virginia Law Review 57 (1971): 1069–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehne, Richard and Reynolds, John. “The Impact of Judicial Activism on Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 22 (1978): 896–904.Google Scholar
Lemos, Margaret H. “Special Incentives to Sue.” Minnesota Law Review 95 (2011): 782–845.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin. American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.Google Scholar
Litan, Robert and Nordhaus, William. Reforming Federal Regulation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Lovell, George I. Legislative Deferrals: Statutory Ambiguity, Judicial Power, and American Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Lyles, Kevin L. The Gatekeepers: Federal District Courts in the Political Process. Westport: Praeger, 1997.Google Scholar
MacCoun, Robert J. “Media Reporting of Jury Verdicts: Is the Tail (of the Distribution) Wagging the Dog?” DePaul Law Review 55 (2006): 539–62.Google Scholar
Marcus, David. “The Past, Present, and Future of Trans-Substantivity in Federal Civil Procedure.” DePaul Law Review 59 (2010): 371–429.Google Scholar
Marcus, David. “Trans-Substantivity and the Processes of American Law.” Brigham Young University Law Review (2013a): 1191–250.Google Scholar
Marcus, David. “The History of the Modern Class Action, Part I: Sturm und Drang, 1953–1990.” Washington University Law Review (2013b): 587–652.Google Scholar
Marcus, Richard. “Shoes That Did Not Drop.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 46 (2013): 637–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Richard. “‘Looking Backward’ to 1938.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 162 (2014): 1691–730.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D. and Quinn, Kevin M.. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10 (2002): 134–53.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. Greed, Chaos, and Governance: Using Public Choice to Improve Public Law. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael. “Reform Litigation on Trial.” Law and Social Inquiry 21 (1992): 457–82.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Robert G. The American Supreme Court, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D. and Schwartz, Thomas. “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols Versus Fire Alarms.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1984): 165–79.Google Scholar
McGarity, Thomas O. “Regulatory Reform in the Reagan Era.” Maryland Law Review 45 (1986): 253–73.Google Scholar
McKay, Robert B. Nine for Equality under Law: Civil Rights Litigation: A Report to the Ford Foundation. New York: Ford Foundation, 1977.Google Scholar
McMahon, Kevin J. “Constitutional Vision and Supreme Court Decisions: Reconsidering Roosevelt on Race.” Studies in American Political Development 14 (2000): 20–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNollgast, . “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 3 (1987): 243–78.Google Scholar
McNollgast, . “The Political Origins of the Administrative Procedure Act.” Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 15 (1999): 180–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep. Between The Lines: Interpreting Welfare Rights. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1994.Google Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep. “Courts and Agencies.” In Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective, edited by Miller, Mark C. and Barnes, Jeb, 89–106. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep. “From Tax and Spend to Mandate and Sue: Liberalism after the Great Society.” In The Great Society and the High Tide of Liberalism, edited by Milkis, Sidney and Mileur, Jerome M., 387–410. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep. “Courts and Agencies in the American Civil Rights State.” In The Politics of Major Policy Reform in Postwar America, edited by Jenkins, Jeffrey and Milkis, Sidney, 77–102. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Mezey, Susan and Olson, Susan, “Fee Shifting and Public Policy: The Equal Access to Justice Act.” Judicature 77 (1993): 13–20.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur R. “Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the ‘Class Action Problem’.” Harvard Law Review 92 (1979): 664–94.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur R. The August 1983 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Promoting Effective Case Management and Lawyer Responsibility. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center, 1984.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur R. “Simplified Pleading, Meaningful Days in Court, and Trials on the Merits: Reflections on the Deformation of Federal Procedure.” New York University Law Review 88 (2013): 286–372.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M. “Political Institutions: The Neglected Side of the Story.” Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 6 (1990): 213–53.Google Scholar
Moore, Patricia H. “The Anti-Plaintiff Pending Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Pro-Defendant Composition of the Federal Rulemaking Committees.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 83 (2015): 1083–154.Google Scholar
Morriss, Andrew P., Yandle, Bruce, and Dorchak, Andrew. Regulation by Litigation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Murphy, Bruce A. Scalia: A Court of One. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. “Reagan's Judicial Strategy.” In Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency, edited by Berman, Larry, 207–37. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. and Tanenhaus, Joseph. “Public Opinion and the United States Supreme Court: Mapping of Some Prerequisites for Court Legitimation of Regime Changes.” Law and Society Review 2 (1968): 357–84.Google Scholar
Nash, Jonathan R. “Interparty Judicial Appointments.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 12 (2015): 664–85.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. and Robert, M. Howard. “Framing Support for the Supreme Court in the Aftermath of Bush v. Gore.” Journal of Politics 65 (2003): 676–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Laura Beth and Albiston, Catherine. “The Organization of Public Interest Practice: 1975-2004.” North Carolina Law Review 84 (2006): 1591–622.Google Scholar
Niemeyer, Paul V. “Here We Go Again: Are the Federal Discovery Rules Really in Need of Amendment?” Boston College Law Review 39 (1998): 517–24.Google Scholar
Note. “Limiting the Section 1983 Action in the Wake of Monroe v. Pape.” Harvard Law Review 82 (1969): 1486–511.Google Scholar
O'Brien, David M. “The Reagan Judges: His Most Enduring Legacy?” In The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance, edited by Jones, Charles O., 60–101. London: Chatham House, 1988.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen and Epstein, Lee. “Rebalancing the Scales of Justice: Assessment of Public Interest Law.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 7 (1984): 483–506.Google Scholar
Pampel, Fred C. Logistic Regression: A Primer. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2000.Google Scholar
Percival, Robert and Miller, Geoffrey. “The Role of Attorney Fee Shifting in Public Interest Litigation.” Law and Contemporary Problems 47 (1984): 233–48.Google Scholar
Peretti, Terri Jennings. In Defense of a Political Court. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Pfander, James E. “The Chief Justice, the Appointment of Inferior Officers, and the ‘Court of Law’ Requirement.” Northwestern University Law Review 107 (2013): 1125–80.Google Scholar
Pickerill, Mitchell and Clayton, Cornell. “The Rehnquist Court and the Political Dynamics of Federalism.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (2004): 233–48.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. “The Rise and Reconfiguration of Activist Government.” In The Transformation of American Politics: Activist Government and the Rise of Conservatism, edited by Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda, 19–38. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. and Rosenthal, Howard. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Purcell, Edward A. Jr. “From the Particular to the General: Three Federal Rules and the Jurisprudence of the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 162 (2014): 1731–65.Google Scholar
Quayle, Dan. “Civil Justice Reform.” American University Law Review 41 (1992): 559–70.Google Scholar
Quigley, William P. “The Demise of Law Reform and the Triumph of Legal Aid: Congress and the Legal Services Corporation from the 1960s through the 1990s.” Saint Louis University Public Law Review 17 (1998): 241–64.Google Scholar
Ragozin, Arlene S. “The Waiver of Immunity in the Equal Access to Justice Act: Clarifying Opaque Language.” Washington University Law Review 61 (1986): 217–44.Google Scholar
Remus, Dana A. “The Institutional Politics of Federal Judicial Conduct Regulation.” Yale Law and Policy Review 31 (2012): 33–78.Google Scholar
Resnik, Judith. “Fairness in Numbers: A Comment on AT&T v. Concepcion, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, and Turner v. Rogers.” Harvard Law Review 125 (2011): 78–171.Google Scholar
Resnik, Judith and Dilg, Lane. “Responding to a Democratic Deficit: Limiting the Powers and the Term of the Chief Justice of the United States.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154 (2006): 1575–664.Google Scholar
Rhode, Deborah L. “Public Interest Law: The Movement at Midlife.” Stanford Law Review 60 (2008): 2027–86.Google Scholar
Rifkind, Simon. “Are We Asking Too Much of our Courts?” In The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future, edited by Levin, A. Leo and Wheeler, Russell R., 23–35. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1979.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, Daniel B. “Statutory Interpretation and Political Advantage.” International Review of Law and Economics 12 (1992): 217–31.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, Daniel and Weingast, Barry R., “The Positive Political Theory of Legislative History.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151 (2003): 1417–542.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald. “Judicial Independence and the Reality of Political Power.” Review of Politics 54 (1992): 369–98.Google Scholar
Ruger, Theodore W. “The Judicial Appointment Power of the Chief Justice.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 7 (2004): 341–402.Google Scholar
Ruger, Theodore W. “The Chief Justice's Special Authority and the Norms of Judicial Power.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154 (2006): 1551–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruger, Theodore W. “Chief Justice Rehnquist's Appointments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court: An Empirical Perspective.” Northwestern University Law Review 101 (2007): 239–58.Google Scholar
Rutledge, Peter B. “Arbitration – A Good Deal for Consumers: A Response to Public Citizen.” U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, 2008.Google Scholar
Salzberger, Eli M. “A Positive Analysis of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, or: Why Do We Have an Independent Judiciary?” International Review of Law and Economics 13 (1993): 349–79.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, Sheila B. “Two Worlds Collide: How the Supreme Court's Recent Punitive Damages Decisions Affect Class Actions.” Baylor Law Review 60 (2008): 880–940.Google Scholar
Schiller, Reuel E. “Rulemaking's Promise: Administrative Law and Legal Culture in the 1960s and 1970s.” Administrative Law Review 53 (2001): 1139–88.Google Scholar
Scheb II, John M. and William, Lyons. “The Myth of Legality and Public Evaluation of the Supreme Court.” Social Sciences Quarterly 81 (2000): 928–40.Google Scholar
Schudson, Michael. The Good Citizen: A History of American Civil Life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Cover, Albert D.. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83 (1989): 557–65.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Spaeth, Harold J.. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Westerland, Chad, and Lindquist, Stefanie A.. “Congress, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Review: Testing a Constitutional Separation of Powers Model.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2011): 89–104.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin M. Who Guards the Guardians? Judicial Control of Administration. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Shefter, Martin. Political Parties and the State: The American Historical Experience. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S. and Carey, John M.. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Siegel, Andrew M. “The Court against the Courts: Hostility to Litigation as an Organizing Theme in the Rehnquist Court's Jurisprudence.” Texas Law Review 84 (2006): 1097–202.Google Scholar
Sisk, Gregory C. “The Essentials of the Equal Access to Justice Act: Court Awards of Attorney's Fees for Unreasonable Government Conduct.” Louisiana Law Review 55 (1994): 217–360.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. Benjamin. “The Restrictive Ethos in Civil Procedure.” George Washington University Law Review 78 (2010): 353–73.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. “Politics and Personal Factors in Retirement from the United States Supreme Court.” Political Behavior 10 (1988): 180–90.Google Scholar
Staszak, Sarah. “Realizing the Rights Revolution: Litigation and the American State.” Law & Social Inquiry 38 (2013): 222–45.Google Scholar
Staszak, Sarah. No Day in Court: Access to Justice and the Politics of Judicial Retrenchment. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinman, Adam N. “The End of an Era: Federal Civil Procedure after the 2015 Amendments.” Emory Law Journal 66 (2016): 1–53.Google Scholar
Steinmo, Sven H. “American Exceptionalism Reconsidered: Culture or Institutions?” In The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretations, edited by Dodd, Lawrence C. and Jillson, Calvin, 106–31. Boulder: Westview Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Stempel, Jeffrey W. “Politics and Sociology in Federal Civil Rulemaking: Errors of Scope.” Alabama Law Review 52 (2001): 529–637.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Matthew. “Court of Public Opinion: Government Accountability and Judicial Independence.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 20 (2004): 379–99.Google Scholar
Stewart, Richard. “The Reformation of American Administrative Law.” Harvard Law Review 88 (1975): 1669–813.Google Scholar
Stimson, James. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder: West View Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Subrin, Stephen. “How Equity Conquered Common Law: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Historical Perspective.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 135 (1987): 909–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subrin, Stephen and Main, Thomas O.. “The Fourth Era of American Civil Procedure.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 162 (2014): 1839–95.Google Scholar
Sunderland, Edison R. “An Appraisal of English Procedure.” Michigan Law Review 24 (1925): 109–29.Google Scholar
Sunderland, Edison R. “Discovery before Trial under the New Federal Rules.” Tennessee Law Review 15 (1939): 737–57.Google Scholar
Sundquist, James L. “Needed: A Political Theory for the New Era of Coalition Government in the United States.” Political Science Quarterly 103 (1988–89): 613–35.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., Schkade, David, Ellman, Lisa, and Sawicki, Andres. Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Taylor, Paul. “The Federalist Papers, the Commerce Clause, and Federal Tort Reform.” Suffolk Law Review 45 (2012): 357–94.Google Scholar
Teles, Steven M. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Thayer, James B. “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law.” Harvard Law Review 7 (1893): 129–56.Google Scholar
Thornburg, Elizabeth G. “Cognitive Bias, the ‘Band of Experts,’ and the Anti-Litigation Narrative.” DePaul Law Review 65 (2016): 755–92.Google Scholar
Tobias, Carl. “Reforming Common Sense Legal Reforms.” Connecticut Law Review 30 (1998): 537–68.Google Scholar
Tonsing, Mike. “Symposium on Proposed Changes to FRCP: An Introduction.” Federal Lawyer (September 2004): 22–5.Google Scholar
Trubek, Louise. “Public Interest Law: Facing the Problem of Maturity.” University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review 33 (2011): 417–34.Google Scholar
Ulribe, Alicia, Spriggs, James F. II, and Hansford, Thomas G.. “The Influence of Congressional Preferences on Legislative Overrides of Supreme Court Decisions.” Law and Society Review 48 (2014): 921–46.Google Scholar
Unah, Isaac, Rosano, Kristen, and Milam, K. Dawn. “U.S. Supreme Court Justices and Public Mood.” Journal of Law and Politics 30 (2015): 293–340.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. Kip. Regulation through Litigation. Washington, DC: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 2002.Google Scholar
Vogel, David. “The ‘New’ Social Regulation in Historical and Comparative Perspective.” In Regulation in Perspective, edited by McCraw, Thomas K., 155–85. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Vogel, David. Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America. New York: Beard Books, 1989.Google Scholar
Wallace, Clifford J. “Judicial Reform and the Pound Conference of 1976.” Michigan Law Review 80 (1982): 592–96.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Howard. “The Roberts Court and the Civil Procedure Revival.” Review of Litigation 31 (2012): 313–52.Google Scholar
Weaver, Kent R. and Burt, A. Rockman. “Assessing the Effects of Institutions.” In Do Institutions Matter?, edited by Weaver, Kent R. and Rockman, Burt A., 1–41. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1993.Google Scholar
Weinstein, Jack B. Reform of Court Rulemaking Procedures. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Weisbrod, Burton A. Public Interest Law: An Economic and Institutional Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith. “‘Interpose Your Friendly Hand’: Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 99 (2005): 583–96.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith. Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. “The Bureaucracy Problem.” The Public Interest 6 (1967): 3–9.Google Scholar
Witcover, Jules. Party of the People: A History of the Democrats. New York: Random House, 2003.Google Scholar
Woolridge, Jeffrey M. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 5th edn. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2013.Google Scholar
Yeazell, Stephen C. From Medieval Group Litigation to the Modern Class Action. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Yeazell, Stephen C. “Judging Rules, Ruling Judges.” Law & Contemporary Problems 61 (1998): 229–52.Google Scholar
Yeazell, Stephen C. “Unspoken Truths and Maligned Interests: Political Parties and the Two Cultures of Civil Litigation.” University of California Los Angeles Law Review 60 (2013): 1752–91.Google Scholar
Zemans, Frances K. “Fee Shifting and the Implementation of Public Policy.” Law and Contemporary Problems 47 (1984): 187–210.Google Scholar
Zumbrun, Ronald A. “Life, Liberty, and Property Rights.” In Bringing Justice to the People: The Story of the Freedom-Based Public Interest Law Movement, edited by Edwards, Lee, 41–53. Berwyn Heights: Heritage Books, 2004.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Stephen B. Burbank, University of Pennsylvania, Sean Farhang, University of California, Berkeley
  • Book: Rights and Retrenchment
  • Online publication: 05 May 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316480229.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Stephen B. Burbank, University of Pennsylvania, Sean Farhang, University of California, Berkeley
  • Book: Rights and Retrenchment
  • Online publication: 05 May 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316480229.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Stephen B. Burbank, University of Pennsylvania, Sean Farhang, University of California, Berkeley
  • Book: Rights and Retrenchment
  • Online publication: 05 May 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316480229.008
Available formats
×