| dc.description.abstract | Interest in the Supreme Court has grown within political science. The rapidly expanding research on the United States Supreme Court has inspired scholars worldwide to study their own national courts. This field is expanding in Norway, yet the literature on case selection remains limited. In the Norwegian Supreme Court, justices rotate on the Appeals Selection Committee (ASC) panel, which reviews lower court appeals and selects cases that meet specific criteria. Since 2008, with civil and criminal appeal law changes, the Supreme Court has managed its docket, determining which cases to prioritize. These decisions significantly impact society, setting precedents for future cases.
The novelty of this research is that it explores which cases the ASC of the Norwegian Supreme Court grants review. The theoretical framework incorporates docket control theories, judicial behavior models, findings that are specific to the Norwegian Supreme Court, and insights from legal experts. Data is extracted from Lovdata publications on the ASC, combined with justices’ attributes from Doranoh to test theoretical aspects. Descriptive statistics, frequency analysis, and logistic regression models are used to analyze the data. Findings indicate that cases where the State is the petitioner are nine times more likely to be granted review. The presence of female justices on the panel negatively predicts case acceptance. These predictions have not previously been documented on the ASC. Interaction effects between justices’ professional backgrounds and the State as the petitioner are negligible. Additionally, the presence of the Chief Justice on panels does not negatively impact the case acceptance rate.
These findings enhance the understanding of case selection in the Norwegian Supreme Court. The model would benefit from more detail, including more variables. Addressing case complexities in the data would also likely improve the research. This data can be further integrated with existing datasets on Supreme Court judgments, contributing to the growing field of judicial behavior studies. | |