Reactions of State Supreme Courts to a U.S. Supreme Court Civil Liberties Decision

Political scientists have in recent years been focusing more of their attention on compliance with Supreme Court decisions. Of course, with rare exceptions, the Supreme Court does not issue orders directly; rather it announces broad policies in the form of opinions. Detailed interpretation and appli...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:	Law & society review 1973-10, Vol.8 (1), p.109-134
1. Verfasser:	Canon, Bradley C.
Format:	Artikel
Sprache:	eng
Schlagworte:	Civil liberties Criminals Defendants Dissent Exclusionary rule Fourth Amendment Judges Prior convictions Search and seizure State courts State/States Supreme Court United States Supreme Court opinions
Online-Zugang:	Volltext
Tags:	Tag hinzufügen Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!

container_end_page	134
container_issue	1
container_start_page	109
container_title	Law & society review
container_volume	8
creator	Canon, Bradley C.
description	Political scientists have in recent years been focusing more of their attention on compliance with Supreme Court decisions. Of course, with rare exceptions, the Supreme Court does not issue orders directly; rather it announces broad policies in the form of opinions. Detailed interpretation and application of these policies are, insofar as the judicial system is concerned at least, left to other courts. Thus those interested in the nature of compliance with Supreme Court policies must explore the manner in which lower courts handle the high court decisions.
doi_str_mv	10.2307/3052810
format	Article
fullrecord	<record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60069314</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3052810</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3052810</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1584-43d4ad79a4b224876cfeb4c26667ebf328891e13f5e7adff03cdb42b50bcbdf53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10E1LAzEQBuAgCtYq_oWAoqet-d7do6yfUBBae16S7ARStk1NsoL_3pX2ouBpGOZhmHkRuqRkxjgp7ziRrKLkCE2oFKSQVc2P0YQQxouaUXWKzlJak7GXXE7QYgHaZh-2CQeHl1lnwMthF2EDuAlDzAnngDVezZaz3wPc-E_f47k3ELOHhB_A-jRuOkcnTvcJLg51ilZPj-_NSzF_e35t7ueFpbISheCd0F1Za2EYE1WprAMjLFNKlWAcZ1VVU6DcSSh15xzhtjOCGUmMNZ2TfIpu9nt3MXwMkHK78clC3-sthCG1ihBVcypGePUHrscHtuNtLWV1WRMhZTWq272yMaQUwbW76Dc6frWUtD_JtodkR3m9l-uUQ_yXfQNcK3Q5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1297904558</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reactions of State Supreme Courts to a U.S. Supreme Court Civil Liberties Decision</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>Canon, Bradley C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Canon, Bradley C.</creatorcontrib><description>Political scientists have in recent years been focusing more of their attention on compliance with Supreme Court decisions. Of course, with rare exceptions, the Supreme Court does not issue orders directly; rather it announces broad policies in the form of opinions. Detailed interpretation and application of these policies are, insofar as the judicial system is concerned at least, left to other courts. Thus those interested in the nature of compliance with Supreme Court policies must explore the manner in which lower courts handle the high court decisions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-9216</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1540-5893</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/3052810</identifier><identifier>CODEN: LWSRAA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Beverly Hills, Calif: Law and Society Association</publisher><subject>Civil liberties ; Criminals ; Defendants ; Dissent ; Exclusionary rule ; Fourth Amendment ; Judges ; Prior convictions ; Search and seizure ; State courts ; State/States ; Supreme Court ; United States Supreme Court opinions</subject><ispartof>Law & society review, 1973-10, Vol.8 (1), p.109-134</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1973 The Law and Society Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1584-43d4ad79a4b224876cfeb4c26667ebf328891e13f5e7adff03cdb42b50bcbdf53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1584-43d4ad79a4b224876cfeb4c26667ebf328891e13f5e7adff03cdb42b50bcbdf53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3052810$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3052810$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27846,27901,27902,33752,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Canon, Bradley C.</creatorcontrib><title>Reactions of State Supreme Courts to a U.S. Supreme Court Civil Liberties Decision</title><title>Law & society review</title><description>Political scientists have in recent years been focusing more of their attention on compliance with Supreme Court decisions. Of course, with rare exceptions, the Supreme Court does not issue orders directly; rather it announces broad policies in the form of opinions. Detailed interpretation and application of these policies are, insofar as the judicial system is concerned at least, left to other courts. Thus those interested in the nature of compliance with Supreme Court policies must explore the manner in which lower courts handle the high court decisions.</description><subject>Civil liberties</subject><subject>Criminals</subject><subject>Defendants</subject><subject>Dissent</subject><subject>Exclusionary rule</subject><subject>Fourth Amendment</subject><subject>Judges</subject><subject>Prior convictions</subject><subject>Search and seizure</subject><subject>State courts</subject><subject>State/States</subject><subject>Supreme Court</subject><subject>United States Supreme Court opinions</subject><issn>0023-9216</issn><issn>1540-5893</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1973</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>HYQOX</sourceid><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>~OU</sourceid><sourceid>~OW</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp10E1LAzEQBuAgCtYq_oWAoqet-d7do6yfUBBae16S7ARStk1NsoL_3pX2ouBpGOZhmHkRuqRkxjgp7ziRrKLkCE2oFKSQVc2P0YQQxouaUXWKzlJak7GXXE7QYgHaZh-2CQeHl1lnwMthF2EDuAlDzAnngDVezZaz3wPc-E_f47k3ELOHhB_A-jRuOkcnTvcJLg51ilZPj-_NSzF_e35t7ueFpbISheCd0F1Za2EYE1WprAMjLFNKlWAcZ1VVU6DcSSh15xzhtjOCGUmMNZ2TfIpu9nt3MXwMkHK78clC3-sthCG1ihBVcypGePUHrscHtuNtLWV1WRMhZTWq272yMaQUwbW76Dc6frWUtD_JtodkR3m9l-uUQ_yXfQNcK3Q5</recordid><startdate>19731001</startdate><enddate>19731001</enddate><creator>Canon, Bradley C.</creator><general>Law and Society Association</general><general>Sage Publications for the Law and Society Association</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ABKTN</scope><scope>GPCCI</scope><scope>HNUUZ</scope><scope>HYQOX</scope><scope>JSICY</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>SFNNT</scope><scope>~OT</scope><scope>~OU</scope><scope>~OV</scope><scope>~OW</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19731001</creationdate><title>Reactions of State Supreme Courts to a U.S. Supreme Court Civil Liberties Decision</title><author>Canon, Bradley C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1584-43d4ad79a4b224876cfeb4c26667ebf328891e13f5e7adff03cdb42b50bcbdf53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1973</creationdate><topic>Civil liberties</topic><topic>Criminals</topic><topic>Defendants</topic><topic>Dissent</topic><topic>Exclusionary rule</topic><topic>Fourth Amendment</topic><topic>Judges</topic><topic>Prior convictions</topic><topic>Search and seizure</topic><topic>State courts</topic><topic>State/States</topic><topic>Supreme Court</topic><topic>United States Supreme Court opinions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Canon, Bradley C.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online JSTOR Titles</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 10</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 21</collection><collection>ProQuest Historical Periodicals</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 36</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 44</collection><collection>PAO Collection 2 (purchase pre Oct/2008)</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online Collection 2</collection><collection>PAO Collection 2</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online Collection 2.2</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Law & society review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Canon, Bradley C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reactions of State Supreme Courts to a U.S. Supreme Court Civil Liberties Decision</atitle><jtitle>Law & society review</jtitle><date>1973-10-01</date><risdate>1973</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>109</spage><epage>134</epage><pages>109-134</pages><issn>0023-9216</issn><eissn>1540-5893</eissn><coden>LWSRAA</coden><abstract>Political scientists have in recent years been focusing more of their attention on compliance with Supreme Court decisions. Of course, with rare exceptions, the Supreme Court does not issue orders directly; rather it announces broad policies in the form of opinions. Detailed interpretation and application of these policies are, insofar as the judicial system is concerned at least, left to other courts. Thus those interested in the nature of compliance with Supreme Court policies must explore the manner in which lower courts handle the high court decisions.</abstract><cop>Beverly Hills, Calif</cop><pub>Law and Society Association</pub><doi>10.2307/3052810</doi><tpages>26</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext	fulltext
identifier	ISSN: 0023-9216
ispartof	Law & society review, 1973-10, Vol.8 (1), p.109-134
issn	0023-9216 1540-5893
language	eng
recordid	cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60069314
source	Jstor Complete Legacy; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Alma/SFX Local Collection; Sociological Abstracts; Periodicals Index Online
subjects	Civil liberties Criminals Defendants Dissent Exclusionary rule Fourth Amendment Judges Prior convictions Search and seizure State courts State/States Supreme Court United States Supreme Court opinions
title	Reactions of State Supreme Courts to a U.S. Supreme Court Civil Liberties Decision
url	https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T09%3A00%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reactions%20of%20State%20Supreme%20Courts%20to%20a%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20Civil%20Liberties%20Decision&rft.jtitle=Law%20&%20society%20review&rft.au=Canon,%20Bradley%20C.&rft.date=1973-10-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=109&rft.epage=134&rft.pages=109-134&rft.issn=0023-9216&rft.eissn=1540-5893&rft.coden=LWSRAA&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/3052810&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3052810%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1297904558&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3052810&rfr_iscdi=true