| Justices and legal clarity: Analyzing the complexity of US Supreme Court opinions RJ Owens, JP Wedeking Law & Society Review 45 (4), 1027-1061, 2011 | 218 | 2011 |
| Supreme Court litigants and strategic framing J Wedeking American Journal of Political Science 54 (3), 617-631, 2010 | 135 | 2010 |
| The (dis) advantage of certainty: The importance of certainty in language PC Corley, J Wedeking Law & Society Review 48 (1), 35-62, 2014 | 121 | 2014 |
| How the Supreme Court alters opinion language to evade congressional review RJ Owens, J Wedeking, PC Wohlfarth Journal of Law and Courts 1 (1), 35-59, 2013 | 112 | 2013 |
| US Supreme Court opinions and their audiences RC Black, RJ Owens, J Wedeking, PC Wohlfarth Cambridge University Press, 2016 | 93 | 2016 |
| People Who Have Their Tickets But Do Not Use Them: “Motor Voter,” Registration, and Turnout Revisited RD Brown, J Wedeking American Politics Research 34 (4), 479-504, 2006 | 69 | 2006 |
| Oral arguments and coalition formation on the US Supreme Court: A deliberate dialogue RC Black, TR Johnson, J Wedeking University of Michigan Press, 2012 | 68 | 2012 |
| The influence of public sentiment on Supreme Court opinion clarity RC Black, RJ Owens, J Wedeking, PC Wohlfarth Law & Society Review 50 (3), 703-732, 2016 | 65 | 2016 |
| Predicting Drift on Politically Insulated Institutions: A Study of Ideological Drift on the United States Supreme Court RJ Owens, J Wedeking The Journal of Politics 74 (2), 487-500, 2012 | 59 | 2012 |
| Pardon the Interruption: An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Justices' Behavior During Oral Arguments TR Johnson, RC Black, J Wedeking Loy. L. Rev. 55, 331, 2009 | 53 | 2009 |
| “No hints, no forecasts, no previews”: An empirical analysis of Supreme Court nominee candor from Harlan to Kagan D Farganis, J Wedeking Law & Society Review 45 (3), 525-559, 2011 | 46* | 2011 |
| Supreme Court confirmation hearings in the US Senate: Reconsidering the charade D Farganis, J Wedeking University of Michigan Press, 2014 | 44 | 2014 |
| The Conscientious Justice: How Supreme Court Justices' Personalities Influence the Law, the High Court, and the Constitution RC Black, RJ Owens, J Wedeking, PC Wohlfarth Cambridge University Press, 2019 | 24 | 2019 |
| Negative media coverage of the Supreme court: The interactive role of opinion language, coalition size, and ideological signals A Denison, J Wedeking, MA Zilis Social Science Quarterly 101 (1), 121-143, 2020 | 21 | 2020 |
| Disagreeable Rhetoric and the Prospect of Public Opposition: Opinion Moderation on the US Supreme Court J Wedeking, MA Zilis Political Research Quarterly 71 (2), 380-394, 2018 | 20 | 2018 |
| Examining the impact of refusal conversions and high callback attempts on measurement error in surveys JM Miller, J Wedeking A. Meet. American Association for Public Opinion Research, Chicago, 2006 | 18* | 2006 |
| Perceptions and experiences of gender fairness in Mississippi courts JW Winkle III, J Wedeking Judicature 87, 126, 2003 | 15 | 2003 |
| The relationship between nonresponse strategies and measurement error N Malhotra, JM Miller, J Wedeking Online Panel Research: Data Quality Perspective, A, 313-336, 2014 | 12 | 2014 |
| Why do policy-motivated justices conform to unfavorable precedents? The role of social-legal backgrounds and precedential characteristics J Wedeking Justice System Journal 33 (1), 69-95, 2012 | 11 | 2012 |
| The Candor Factor: Does Nominee Evasiveness Affect Judiciary Committee Support for Supreme Court Nominees? J Wedeking, D Farganis Hofstra Law Review 39 (2), 329-368, 2010 | 10 | 2010 |
Ryan OwensVerified email at wisc.edu
