Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

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.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Reka Albert , and Albert-Laszlo Barabasi . 2002. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics 74: 4797.

Phillip Bonacich . 1972. Factoring and weighing approaches to clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 2: 113–20.

Phillip Bonacich . 1987. Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology 92: 1170–82.

Gregory A. Caldeira 1985. The transmission of legal precedent: A study of state Supreme Courts. American Political Science Review 79: 178–93.

Edward G. Carmines , and Richard A. Zeller 1979. Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lee Epstein , and Jeffrey A. Segal 2000. Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science 44: 6683.

James H. Fowler 2006. Connecting the Congress: A study of cosponsorship networks. Political Analysis 14: 456–87.

Lawrence M. Friedman , Robert A. Kagan , Bliss Cartwright , and Stanton Wheeler . 1981. State Supreme Courts: A century of style and citation. Stanford Law Review 33: 773818.

Charles A. Johnson 1987. Law, politics, and judicial decision making: Lower federal court uses of Supreme Court decisions. Law and Society Review 21: 325–40.

Frederick G. Kempin 1959. Precedent and stare decisis: The critical years, 1800 to 1850. American Journal of Legal History 3: 2854.

David E. Klein 2002. Making law in the United States Courts of Appeals. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jon M. Kleinberg 1999. Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 46(5): 604632.

William M. Landes , Lawrence Lessig , and Michael E. Solimine 1998. Judicial influence: A citation analysis of federal courts of appeals judges. Journal of Legal Studies 27: 271332.

William M. Landes , and Richard A. Posner 1976. Legal precedent: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Law and Economics 19: 249307.

John Henry Merryman . 1954. The authority of authority: What the California Supreme Court cited in 1950. Stanford Law Review 6: 613–73.

S. Redner 1998. How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. European Physical Journal B 4: 131–4.

Mark J. Richards , and Herbert M. Kritzer 2002. Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review 96: 305–20.

Frederick Schauer . 1987. Precedent. Stanford Law Review 39: 571605.

James F. Spriggs II, and Thomas G. Hansford 2000. Measuring legal change: The reliability and validity of Shepard's citations. Political Research Quarterly 53: 327–41.

Paul J. Wahlbeck 1998. The development of a legal rule: The federal common law of public nuisance. Law & Society Review 32: 613–37.

Patricia M. Wald 1995. The rhetoric and the results of rhetoric: Judicial writings. University of Chicago Law Review 62: 1371–419.

Stanley Wasserman , and Katherine Faust . 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: 27 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 112 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 4th January 2017 - 22nd September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.