US courts of appeals and state supreme court responses to Arizona v. Gant: a study in judicial impact

References

• American Law Institute. 2006. Restatement (third) of agency. Philadelphia: American Law Institute. Available from: http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/ICBCorporations-Companion/AdditionalReadings/Restatement%28third%29Agency.pdf [Accessed 11 July 2012].
   Google Scholar
• BaumL.. 1976. Implementation of judicial decisions: an organizational analysis. American Politics Quarterly. 4: 186–114.
   Google Scholar
• BeneshS.C., ReddickM.. 2002. Overruled: an event history analysis of lower court reaction to Supreme Court alteration of precedent. The Journal of Politics. 64: 2534–550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BlackH.C.. 1979. Black's law dictionary: definitions of the terms and phrases of American and English jurisprudence, ancient and modern5th ed.. St. Paul: West Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• BrentJ.C.. 1999. An agent and two principals: U.S. Court of Appeals responses to Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. American Politics Research. 27: 236–266 2, April.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BrentJ.C.. 2003. A principal-agent analysis of U.S. Courts of Appeals responses to Boerne v. Flores. American Politics Research. 31: 557–570 5, September.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ClarkT.S.. 2009. A principal-agent theory of En Banc review. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 25: 155–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ConradC.R., MooreW.H.. 2010. What stops the torture?. American Journal of Political Science. 54: 2459–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeeT.S.. 2010. The impact of no child left behind on students, teachers, and schools (with comments and discussion). Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. 149–207 Fall 2010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EisnerM.A.. 2010. Antitrust and the triumph of economics: institutions, expertise, and policy change. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• GizziM.C.. 2011. Pretextual stops, vehicle searches, and crime control: an examination of strategies used on the frontline of the war on drugs. Criminal Justice Studies. 24: 2139–152.
   Google Scholar
• GizziM.C., CurtisR.C.. 2011. The impact of Arizona v. Gant on search and seizure law as applied to vehicle searches. University of Denver Criminal Law Review. 1: 130–50.
   Google Scholar
• GizziM.C., CurtisR.C.. 2013. What is a landmark case? Ranking search and seizure cases using Shepard's citations. The Criminal Law Bulletin. 49: 2 forthcoming, Winter 2013.
   Google Scholar
• GreeneP.S., WiceB.W.. 1982. The D.E.A. drug courier profile: history and analysis. South Texas Law Journal. 22: 261–285 spring Available from: http://www.soc.umn.edu/∼samaha/cases/greene_and_wice_drug_courier_profile_history.html [Accessed 24 March 2008].
   Google Scholar
• GumbhirV.E.. 2007. But is it racial profiling: policing, pretext stops, and the color of suspicion. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• HarrisD.A.. 2001. Profiles in injustice: why racial profiling can't work. New York, NY: New Press.
   Google Scholar
• HeumannM., CassackL.. 2003. Good cop, bad cop: racial profiling and competing views of justice. New York: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• JohnsonC.A., CanonB.C.. 1984. Judicial policies: implementation and impact. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
   Google Scholar
• JudgeL.. 2009. Bye-bye Belton? Supreme Court decision shifts authority for vehicle searches from automatic to manual. Police Chief. LXXXVI (June), online (Chief's Counsel). Available from: (http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction = display_ arch&article_id = 1811&issue_id = 62009 [Accessed 4 April 2012].
   Google Scholar
• MoeT.M.. 2006. Political control and the power of the agent. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 22: 11–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PeltasonJ.W.. 1961. Fifty-eight lonely men: southern federal judges and school desegregation. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
   Google Scholar
• PetersonW.H.. 1986. Dormitory drug dens and due process: the law of search in the federal system. Bristol, IN: Wyndham Hall.
   Google Scholar
• PollockS.G.. 1985. Adequate and independent state grounds as a means of balancing the relationship between state and federal courts. Texas Law Review. 63: 977–993 March/April, 6 & 7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SiskG.C., HeiseM.. 2005. Judges and ideology: public and academic debates about statistical measures. 99 Northwestern University Law Review. 99: 743–803 Winter.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SongerD.R.. 1994. The hierarchy of justice: testing a principal-agent model of Supreme Court-circuit court. American Journal of Political Science. 38: 673–696 3 August.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Drug Enforcement Administration. 2009. Operations pipeline and convoy. Available from: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/programs/pipecon.htm [Accessed 13 August 2009].
   Google Scholar
• WasbyS.L.. 1970. The impact of the United States Supreme Court: some perspectives. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
   Google Scholar
• WoodB.D., WatermanR.W.. 1994. Bureaucratic dynamics: the role of bureaucracy in a democracy. Boulder: Westview.
   Google Scholar
• YungC.R.. 2010. Judged by the company you keep: an empirical study of the ideologies of judges on the United States Courts of Appeals. Boston College Law Review. 51: 1133–1206 September.
   Google Scholar

Cases cited