Advanced search
Publication Cover
Argumentation and Advocacy Volume 26, 1989 - Issue 1
Submit an article Journal homepage
9
Views
17
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Attorney Argumentation and Supreme Court Opinions

William L. Benoit Mr. Benoit is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. This research was supported by a grant from the Bowling Green State University Faculty Research Committee. An earlier version, co-authored with James f. Lindsey, was presented at the Speech Communication Association convention in Chicago, IL, 1984. This manuscript was accepted and edited by the previous editorial board.
Pages 22-38 | Published online: 18 Dec 2017

References

  • Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
  • Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. London: Cambridge University Press.
  • Benoit, W. L. (1981). An empirical investigation of argumentative strategies employed in Supreme Court opinions. In G. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argument (pp. 179–95). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
  • Benoit, W. L. (1985). The role of argumentation in source credibility. In J. R. Cox , M. O. Sillars , & G. B. Walker (Eds.), Argument and social practice: Proceedings of the fourth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 592–603). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
  • Benoit, W. L. (1987). Argumentation and credibility appeals in persuasion. Southern Speech Communication Journal , 52, 181–97.
  • Benoit, W. L. , & Lindsey, J. J. (1987). Argument fields and forms of inference in natural language. In F. H. van Eemeren , R. Grootendorst , J. A. Blair , & C. A. Willard , (eds.), Argumentation: Perspectives and approaches (pp. 215–24). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.
  • Berkman, B. A. (1975). Proceedings: Oral argument of Bernard A. Berkman, Esq., on behalf of appellant [Mapp v. Ohio]. In P. B. Kurland & G. Casper (Eds.), Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional Law (pp. 1170–76). Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.
  • Cox, A. (1976). The role of the Supreme Court in American government. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Delia, J. G. , & Grossberg, L. (1977). Interpretation and evidence. Western Journal of Speech Communication , 41, 32–42.
  • Delia, J. G. , O'Keefe, B. J. , & O'Keefe, D. J. (1982). In F. E. X. Dance (Ed.), Human communication theory: Comparative essays (pp. 147–91. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Dickens, M. , & Schwartz, R. E. (1971). Oral argument before the Supreme Court: Marshall v. Davis in the school segregation cases. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 57, 32–42.
  • Forston, R. R. (1975). Communication perspectives in the legal process. In R. L. Applbaum , O. O. Jensen , and R. Carroll , (Eds.), Speech communication: A basic anthology (pp. 277–94). New York: Macmillan.
  • Gaskill, N. B. , & McCarter, R. H. (1975). Brief on behalf on defendant, in error [Twining v. New Jersey.] In P. B. Kurland & G. Casper (Eds.), Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional law (pp. 860–88). Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.
  • Golden J. L. , & Makau, J. M. (1982). Perspectives on judicial reasoning. In R. E. McKerrow (Ed.), Explorations in rhetoric: Studies in honor of Douglas Ehninger (pp. 157–77). Glenview: Scott, Foresman.
  • Hagan, M. R. (1976). Roe v. Wade: The rhetoric of fetal life. Central States Speech Journal , 27, 192–99.
  • Hample, D. (1977). Testing a model of value argument and evidence. Communication Monographs , 44, 106–20.
  • Hample, D. (1978). Predicting immediate belief change and adherence to argument claims. Communication Monographs , 45, 219–28.
  • Hample, D. (1979). Predicting belief and belief change using a cognitive theory of argument and evidence. Communication Monographs , 46, 142–51.
  • Hample, D. (1980). A cognitive view of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 17, 151–58.
  • Hample, D. (1981). The cognitive context of argument. Western Journal of Speech Communication's , 148–58.
  • Hample, D. (1985). A third perspective on argument. Philosophy & Rhetoric , 18, 1–22.
  • Hinkley, H. L. , & Henderson, J. S. (1975). Brief of respondent [Wolf v. Colorado], In P. B. Kurland & G. Casper (Eds.), Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional law (pp. 917–55). Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.
  • Hopkins, T. A. (1962). The speech that validated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890: Philander Chase Knox's address to the Supreme Court, Quarterly Journal of Speech , 48, 51–58.
  • Hornbein, P. , Hornbein, P. , & Shere, D. M. (1975). Reply brief of petitioner [Wolf v. Colorado] In P. B. Kurland & G. Casper (Eds.), Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional law (pp. 957–66). Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.
  • Hunsaker, D. M. (1978). The rhetoric of Brown v. Board of Education: Paradigm for contemporary social protest. Southern Speech Communication Journal , 43, 91–109.
  • Ittelsen, W. H. , & Cantril, H. (1954). Perception: A transactional approach. New York: Norton.
  • Jacobs, H. (1981). Justice in America. Boston: Little, Brown, 3/e.
  • Johnson, J. G. , Gooch, W. W. , Smyth, H. C. , & Schofield, F. C. (1975). Brief for plaintiff in error [Twining v. New Jersey], In P. B. Kurland & G. Casper (Eds.), Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional law (pp. 707–75). Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.
  • Jones, S. B. (1976). Justification in judicial opinion. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 12, 121–29.
  • Kearns, A. L. (1975). Proceedings: Oral argument of A. L. Kearns, Esq., on behalf of appellant [Mapp v. Ohio], In P. B. Kurland & G. Casper (Eds.), Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional law (pp. 1158–69). Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.
  • Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
  • Kneupper, C. W. (1979). Paradigms and problems: Alternative constructivist/interactionist implications for argumentation theory. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 15, 220–27.
  • Kneupper, C. W. (1980). Rhetoric, argument, and social reality: A social constructivist view. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 16, 173–81.
  • Kneupper, C. W. (1981). Argument: A social constructivist perspective. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 17, 183–89.
  • LaBelle, J. D. , Duke, S. B. , Stroughton, G. D. , & Hultgren, H. W. (1975). Brief for respondent [Malloy v. Hogan], In P. B. Kurland & G. Casper (Eds.), Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional law (pp. 41–71). Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.
  • Levison, G. L. (1979). The rhetoric of the oral argument in The regents of the University of California v. Bakke . Western Journal of Speech Communication, 43, 271–77.
  • Malloy v. Hogan (1964). 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed. 2d 653.
  • Mapp v. Ohio (1961). 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081.
  • Minsky, M. (1977). Frame-system theory. In P. H. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 355–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Newell, S. E. , & Rieke, R. D. (1986). A practical reasoning approach to legal doctrine. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 22, 212–22.
  • Perloff, R. E. , & Brock, T. C. (1980) …. ‘And thinking makes it so:’ Cognitive responses to persuasion. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller , (Eds.), Persuasion: New directions in theory and research , (67–100). Beverly Hills: Sage.
  • Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Petty, R. E. , Ostrom, T. M. , & Brock, T. C. (Eds.) (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Rabin, D. A. (1978). Gottlieb's model of rule-guided reasoning: An analysis of Griswold v. Connecticut . Journal of the American Forensic Association, 15, 77–90.
  • Rieke, R. D. (1982). Argumentation in the legal process. In J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 363–76). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
  • Rogers, R. S. (1982). Generic tendencies in majority and non-majority Supreme Court opinions: The case of Justice Douglas,” Communication Quarterly , 30, 232–36.
  • Schank, R. C. , & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, and knowledge. In P. H. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 421–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Smith, M. J. (1982). Persuasion and human action: A review and critique of social influence theories. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  • Strauch, H. (1975). Brief for petitioner [Malloy v. Hogan], In P. B. Kurland & G. Casper (Eds.), Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional law (pp. 23–40). Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.
  • Strother, D. B. (1963). Polemics and the reversal of the “Separate but Equal” doctrine. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 49 50–63.
  • Strother, D. B. (1961). Persuasion in American legal procedure. Western Speech , 25 231–36.
  • Trapp, R. , & Benoit, P. J. (1987). An interpretive perspective on argumentation: A research editorial. Western Journal of Speech Communication , 51, 417–30.
  • Twining v. New Jersey (1908). 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14; 53 L.Ed. 97.
  • Van Winkle, M. (1975). Brief for David C. Cornell [Twining v. New Jersey], In P. B. Kurland & G. Casper (Eds.), Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional law (pp. 977–823). Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.
  • Wasby, S. L. (1982). The functions and importance of appellate oral argument: Some views of lawyers and federal judges. Judicature , 65, 341–53.
  • Wasby, S. L. , D'Amato, A. A. , & Metrailler, R. (1976). The functions of oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 62 410–22.
  • Watts, R. , Berkman, B. A. , Livingstone, F. J. , & Renswick, J. C. (1975). Brief amici curiae on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union and Ohio Civil Liberties Union [Mapp v. Ohio]. In P. B. Kurland & G. Casper (Eds.), Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional law (pp. 1113–55). Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.
  • Willard, C. A. (1978). A reformulation of the concept of argument: The constructivist/interactionist foundations of a sociology of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 14, 121–40.
  • Willard, C. A. (1979a). The epistemic functions of argument: Reasoning and decision-making from a constructivist/interactionist point of view. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 15, 169–91.
  • Willard, C. A. (1979b). The epistemic functions of argument: Reasoning and decision-making from a constructivist/interactionist point of view: Part II. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 15, 211–19.
  • Wolf v. Colorado (1949). 338 U.S. 25, 69 S. Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782.
  • Woodward, B. , & Armstrong, S. (1979). The brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  • Wulf, M. L. , & Ford, M. D. , (1975). Brief for American Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae [Malloy v. Hogan]. In P. B. Kurland & G. Casper (Eds.), Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional law (pp. 77–105). Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.
  • Wyer, R. S. (1974). Cognitive organization and change: An information processing approach. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.