Ad
related to: procedural requirements for judicial review
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The procedure for judicial review of federal administrative regulation in the United States is set forth by the Administrative Procedure Act although the courts have ruled such as in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents [84] that a person may bring a case on the grounds of an implied cause of action when no statutory procedure exists.
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. If the court finds the decision unlawful it ...
Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers—the power of the judiciary to supervise (judicial supervision) the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within ...
A party aggrieved by an agency action (either rulemaking or adjudication) may seek judicial review (that is, sue) as provided by an agency's organic statute or by §§ 701-706 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Studies of judicial review typically find that 70% of agency rules are upheld with the Supreme Court upholding 91% of rules; a 2011 ...
This procedure was once common but is now rarely invoked; the last certificate accepted for review was in 1981. By petition for an "extraordinary writ" such as mandamus, prohibition, or habeas corpus. These writs are rarely granted by the Supreme Court though they are more frequently granted by lower courts.
The court was of the opinion that if not for national security interests, the application to protect a procedural legitimate expectation through judicial review would have been granted. [ 38 ] Protection of procedural legitimate expectations has since been firmly entrenched as one of the court's roles in judicial review.
Rational basis review is not a genuine effort to determine the legislature's actual reasons for enacting a statute, nor to inquire into whether a statute does in fact further a legitimate end of government. A court applying rational basis review will virtually always uphold a challenged law unless every conceivable justification for it is a ...
United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co. (1973) - formal rule-making requires statute that requires "hearing on the record." Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1978) - courts may not impose additional procedural requirements on top of the APA in rule-making.