Considered a classic of comparative law and legal systems, this book has been twice reprinted since its first appearance 50 years ago, and is now available in a high-quality digital edition. No work has so openly and extensively—using hands-on observations by leading legal figures of the time—compared appellate courts in two common law countries. While much comparative work contrasts civil law systems with those of the common law, this study teased out substantial, impactful differences even within two traditional common law systems. The original project grew out of an intensive experiment in comparing the U.S. and English appellate courts, by which highly recognized American and English judges and lawyers met repeatedly to study and report on the appellate courts of each other's countries, with the goal of improving such courts in their own. Distinguished U.S. proceduralist Delmar Karlen of NYU then described in detail the tribunals studied, the observations of the participants, and areas of judicial administration; then he compared and contrasted appellate procedures and structures in each country, in an extensive conclusion. The work remains invaluable for legal scholars, judicial administrators, and political scientists. The 2014 ebook edition by Quid Pro Books is an unabridged and carefully proofread republication of the original NYU work (in substance the same as the 1984 and 2004 reprint editions by other publishers), adding quality digital features to enhance its present use. These features include active Contents, linked notes, linked cross-references within the book, and even a fully-linked Index that tracks the original pagination of print editions. A new paperback edition is also available from Quid Pro.

Courts of Appeals were designed to be a unifying force in American law and politics, but they also contribute to decentralization and regionalization of federal law. Woodford Howard studies three aspects of this problem: first, what binds the highly decentralized federal courts into a judicial system; second, what controls the discretion of judges in making law and policy; and third, how can quality judicial decisions be maintained under heavy-volume pressure. Originally published in 1981. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

Drawing on economic and political theory, legal analysis, and his own extensive judicial experience, Posner sketches the history of the federal courts, describes the contemporary institution, appraises concerns that have been expressed with their performance, and presents a variety of proposals for both short-term and fundamental reform.

Judicial Politics in the United States examines the role of courts as policymaking institutions and their interactions with the other branches of government and other political actors in the U.S. political system. Not only does this book cover the nuts and bolts of the functions, structures and processes of our courts and legal system, it goes beyond other judicial process books by exploring how the courts interact with executives, legislatures, and state and federal bureaucracies. It also includes a chapter devoted to the courts' interactions with interest groups, the media, and general public opinion and a chapter that looks at how American courts and judges interact with other judiciaries around the world. Judicial Politics in the United States balances coverage of judicial processes with discussions of the courts' interactions with our larger political universe, making it an essential text for students of judicial politics.

Of the nearly five thousand cases presented to the Supreme Court each year, less than 5 percent are granted review. How the Court sets its agenda, therefore, is perhaps as important as how it decides cases. H. W. Perry, Jr., takes the first hard look at the internal workings of the Supreme Court, illuminating its agenda-setting policies, procedures, and priorities as never before. He conveys a wealth of new information in clear prose and integrates insights he gathered in unprecedented interviews with five justices. For this unique study Perry also interviewed four U.S. solicitors general, several deputy solicitors general, seven judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and sixty-four former Supreme Court law clerks. The clerks and justices spoke frankly with Perry, and his skillful analysis of their responses is the mainspring of this book. His engaging report demystifies the Court, bringing it vividly to life for general readers--as well as political scientists and a wide spectrum of readers throughout the legal profession. Perry not only provides previously unpublished information on how the Court operates but also gives us a new way of thinking about the institution. Among his contributions is a decision-making model that is more convincing and persuasive than the standard model for explaining judicial behavior.