Both intrastate factors and broader national developments shape the character of State politics and thus State court operations. In cases that raise Federal questions, State supreme courts must give precedence to Federal law over State law and must conform their interpretation of Federal law to U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Even in the absence of hierarchical authority, decisional trends among sister courts provide direction for the resolution of common legal problems, particularly in the common law area. National political phenomena, trends in judicial role and legal interpretation, and court reform patterns may likewise influence State supreme court operations. State high courts also share common responsibilities, such as elaborating common law principles and interpreting statutory and constitutional law. The sharing of these responsibilities promotes a degree of uniformity in State supreme court rulings and activities. Yet, there are marked differences in jurisprudence within State supreme courts and in the roles they play both nationally and within their States. Alabama, Ohio, and New Jersey supreme courts have exhibited a great deal of diversity in behavior and perspective. As changes have occurred, the courts' relationships with political authorities in the State and interactions with other State and Federal courts have changed. These changes are analyzed in terms of institutional identity, issues before the courts, political and legal culture, judicial reform, and court composition. The impact of judicial federalism on State supreme courts is discussed, and questions asked in the course of conducting the case study research are noted in an appendix. Footnotes, tables, and photographs