The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective
Open accessAbstract
We believe that at a deeper level the independent judiciary is not only consistent with, but essential to, the interest-group theory of government. Part I of this paper explains our theory of the independent judiciary. Part II discusses several implications of the theory, relating to administrative regulation, the form of interest-group legislation, the tenure of judges, and constitutional adjudication. The appendix to this paper presents an empirical analysis of judicial independence using data on Acts of Congress that have been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
La Porta, R., López‐de‐Silanes, F., Pop‐Eleches, C., & Shleifer, A. (2004) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/381480 · Cited by 678
The Tinpot and the Totalitarian: An Economic Theory of Dictatorship
Wintrobe, R. (1990) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1962769 · Cited by 430
Metadata
- Authors
- Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A.
- Venue
- The Journal of Law and Economics
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1975-12
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 875-901
- ISSN
- 0022-2186 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5285
- OpenAlex
- W1985079567
- Cited by
- 635
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/466849
- The paper
- Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (1975). The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective. The Journal of Law and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1086/466849
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
