Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T20:38:26.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dissent on the California Supreme Court, 1850-1920

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Kermit L. Hall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This essay probes two matters. First, it establishes the extent and pattern of partisan-based dissent on the California Supreme Court during the so-called “party period” of American history, the years from roughly 1840 to 1920 (McCormick, 1979). It concludes that the concept of judicial independence retained great vitality despite a strongly partisan scheme of accountability. Second, it suggests that constitutional arrangements and environmental conditions were important in conditioningjudicial behavior. While these findings are preliminary, they nonetheless constitute an important first step toward unraveling the character of California’s and the nation’s judicial cultures during this extraordinary period of party development (Hall, 1984).

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Science History , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Summer 1987 , pp. 63 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 1987 

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

Adamany, D. (1969) “The Party Variable in Judges’ Voting: Conceptual Notes and a Case Study.” American Political Science Review 63 (March): 57–73.Google Scholar
Bakken, G. M. (1985) The Development of Law in Frontier California: Civil Law and Society, 1850-1890. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. W. (1972) “Popular Control of Public Policy: A Normal Vote Analysis of the 1968 Election.” American Political Science Review 66 (June): 429–446.Google Scholar
Caldeira, G. A. (1982) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Canon, B. C. and Jaros, D. (1970) “External Variables, Institutional Structure, and Dissent on State Supreme Courts.” Polity 3 (December): 185–200.Google Scholar
Canon, B. C. and Jaros, D. (1972) “The Impact of Formal Selection Processes on the Characteristics of Judges—Reconsidered.” Law and Society Review 6 (May): 579–593.Google Scholar
Dubois, P. L. (1980) From Ballot to Bench: Judicial Elections and the Quest for Accountability. Austin: The University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Fox V. Oakland Consolidated Street Railway Company, 118 Cal. 55 (1897).Google Scholar
Friedman, L. M. (1973) A History of American Law. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Friedman, L. M. (1983) “Courts Over Time: A Survey of Theories and Research,” in Boyum, K. O. and Mather, L. (eds.) Empirical Theories About Courts. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1983) Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Grossman, J. B. (1968) “Dissenting Blocs on the Warren Court: A Study in Judicial Role Behavior.” Journal of Politics 38: 1068–1090.Google Scholar
Hall, K. L. (1983) “The Judiciary on Trial: State Constitutional Reform and the Rise of an Elected Judiciary, 1846-1860.” The Historian 44 (May): 337–350.Google Scholar
Hall, K. L. (1984) “Progressive Reform and the Decline of Democratic Accountability: The Popular Election of State Supreme Court Judges, 1850-1982.” The American Bar Foundation Research Journal (Spring): 345–369.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, R. I. (1968) “Socioeconomic Dimensions of the American States, 1890-1960.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 12 (March): 401–418.Google Scholar
Howard, J. W. (1981) Courts of Appeal in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jaros, D. and Canon, B. C. (1971) “Dissent on State Supreme Courts: The Differential Significance of Characteristics of Judges.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 15 (February): 322–346.Google Scholar
Kagan, R. A., Friedman, L. M., Cartwright, B. and Wheeler, S. (1977) “The Business of State Supreme Courts, 1879-1970.” Stanford Law Review 30 (November): 121–156.Google Scholar
McCormick, R. L. (1979) “The Party Period and Public Policy: An Exploratory Hypothesis.” The Journal of American History 66 (September): 279–298.Google Scholar
McMurray, O. K. (1915) “Changing Conceptions of Law and Legal Institutions,” in Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the California Bar Association. San Francisco: The Recorder Printing Company.Google Scholar
Mott, R. (1936) “Judicial Influence.” American Political Science Review 30 (March): 295–322.Google Scholar
Mowry, G. (1951) The California Progressives. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, W. F. and Tanenhaus, J. (1972) The Study of Public Law. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Rogin, M. P. and Shover, (1970) Political Changes in California: Critical Elections and Social Development. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
San Francisco Call (1898) August 18, October 25.Google Scholar
San Francisco Examiner (1898) October 25.Google Scholar
Wasby, S. L. (1978) “Accountability of the Courts,” in Greer, S., Hedlund, R. D., and Gibson, J. L. (eds.) Accountability in Urban Society: Public Agencies Under Fire. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Willetts, P. (1972) “Cluster-Bloc Analysis and Statistical Inference.” American Political Science Review 66 (June): 569–582.Google Scholar