STRATIFICATION STUDIES ASK WHO WINS OR LOSES A CASE AND WHY. RESEARCHERS NEED TO DETERMINE THE IDENTITY OF A PARTY, THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THAT PARTY, AND THE CASE DISPOSITION. APPELLATE CASES, HOWEVER, OFTEN PRODUCE COMPLEX AND AMBIGUOUS PARTY-OUTCOME ASCRIPTIONS. MULTIPLE APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS APPEAR, EACH WITH DIFFERENT CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS. PARTIES ARE ADDED AND DROPPED ACROSS LEVELS AND DATA ON STRATIFICATION CHARACTERISTICS (AGE, OCCUPATION, AND RESIDENCE) ARE OFTEN MISSING FURTHERMORE, COURT DECISIONS AT ANY GIVEN LEVEL ARE NOT ALWAYS THE FINAL OUTCOMES (APPELLATE COURTS REVERSE LOWER COURT OUTCOMES, LOWER COURTS DECIDE CASES AFTER REMANDS). SOME TYPICAL RESEARCH ISSUES ARE EXAMINED UNDER THE TOPICS OF UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES, PARTY-ISSUE CORRELATIONS, CHANGING PARTIES, AND MEASUREMENT UNRELIABILITY. REPORTED OPINIONS CAN ALSO BE USED TO STUDY THE APPEAL PROCESS ITSELF. THEORISTS INFLUENCED BY DURKHEIM AND PARSONS EMPHASIZE THE INTERGRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE REVIEW. THEY SEE APPELLATE COURTS AS CENTRALIZED JUDICIAL BODIES WHICH RESOLVE CONFLICTS, MONITOR LOWER-COURT PROCEDURES, AND SYNTHESIZE CONFLICTING INSTITUTIONAL NORMS. THE INTEGRATION MODEL ASSUMES THAT A SPECIALIZED HIERARCHAL LEGAL SYSTEM SUPPLIES DIVERSIFIED BUT COORDINATED NORMS DESIGNED TO REAFFIRM AND REINTEGRATE BASIC CULTURAL VALUES. PROBLEMS CONFRONTING THE INTEGRATIVE MODEL ARE DESCRIBED UNDER THE FOLLOWING TOPICS: NEW VALUES, CONSTITUENT ISOLATION, NONINTEGRATING RESPONSES, NEW CONSTITUENCIES, REVIEWING CYCLES, AND MIXTURES OF REVIEWING CYCLES. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE INTEGRATION MODEL WOULD GAIN PLAUSIBILITY IN RESEARCH ARE IDENTIFIED. IT IS HOPED THAT FUTURE THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL WORK WILL BE ABLE TO SHARPEN AND SPECIFY THE RELATIVE WEIGHTING AND INTERDEPENDENCE OF SOCIAL AND APPELLATE COURT FORCES SO THAT THE THEORETICAL SUBTLETY OF THE INTEGRATION MODEL CAN BE RETAINED, WITHOUT LOSING THE RICHNESS OF EXOGENOUS THEORIES OF APPELLATE LITIGATION. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)