Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution.
Judicial review can be understood in the context of two distinct—but parallel—legal systems, civil law and common law, and also by two distinct theories of democracy regarding the manner in which government should be organized with respect to the principles and doctrines of legislative supremacy and the separation of powers.
The second heading includes grounds of judicial review such as making decisions on the basis of insufficient evidence or errors of material fact, failing to take into account relevant considerations and taking into account irrelevant ones, making decisions for improper purposes, fettering of discretion, and failing to fulfil legitimate ...
Judicial review is a part of UK constitutional law that enables people to challenge the exercise of power, usually by a public body.A person who contends that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court (a part of the King's Bench Division of the High Court) for a decision.
Certain grounds for judicial review are laid out in s. 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act. This section of the Act also transfers authority over judicial review against any federal body from the provincial superior courts to the federal courts. [17]
Subsequently, in O'Reilly v Mackman (1983) [4] the doctrine of legitimate expectation was recognized as part of judicial review in public law, allowing individuals to challenge the legality of decisions on the grounds that the decision-maker "had acted outwith the powers conferred upon it". [5]
The avoidance doctrine flows from the canon of judicial restraint and is intertwined with the debate over the proper scope of federal judicial review and the allocation of power among the three branches of the federal government and the states. It is also premised on the "delicacy" and the "finality" of judicial review of legislation for ...
An unconstitutional constitutional amendment is a concept in judicial review based on the idea that even a properly passed and properly ratified constitutional amendment, specifically one that is not explicitly prohibited by a constitution's text, can nevertheless be unconstitutional on substantive (as opposed to procedural) grounds—such as due to this amendment conflicting with some ...