
The origins of a Writ of Certiorari are in British law. The goal of this judicial institution was to guarantee justice. A superior court could issue such a writ to review a decision made in a lower court. The issuance of such a brief was done on a discretionary basis, with no requirement on the part of the superior court to justify such an action. Currently, the US Supreme Court has a discretionary docket, which aside from a few exceptions, is unlike many of its counterparts overseas (Fleming and Krutz 2002). Under modern-day jurisdiction, in most types of cases the Court hears only cases granted Certiorari. Consequently, almost all of the requests for review are denied. The winnowing of requests for review is at the level of over 98 percent (see figure 2.1).
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
