Suchergebnisse

What follows is, first, a report of certain developments during the last two years in the administrative law of Virginia, in particular the law governing rule making by state agencies and judicial review of both rules and cases from state agencies and, second, a report of developments in the law relating to Virginia's Freedom of Information Act.

"The Federal Tort Claims Act": p. 74-80. ; "The Administrative Procedure Act": p. 65-74. ; Includes index. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This article is a report of certain developments during the last two years relating to the Virginia Administrative Process Act ("the VAPA"), which governs rulemaking and adjudication of cases by state agencies as well as judicial review of both.

The authors discuss recent developments in the field of administrative law in Florida. They discuss the constitutional and legal limitations imposed on the Florida legislature, administrative agencies and judiciary when involved in the administrative process. They then analyze the recent trend towards consolidation of proceedings among agencies and conclude that, if the trend is to gain any momentum, the legislature must redraft the regulatory schemes.

Mastering Administrative Law is designed as a supplement to law school courses in administrative law or as an introduction to the subject for lawyers trained in other legal systems. The book explicitly and in plain language identifies the functions of the various principles of administrative law. It covers all the basic administrative law topics, including how the administrative process fits into our governmental structure, typical agency procedures (e.g., rulemaking, adjudication, investigation, etc.), important statutes affecting agencies (e.g., the freedom of information act), constitutional limits on legislatures and agencies and the limited but critical role of the courts in helping monitor the process. A number of classroom-tested graphics—charts, tables, diagrams—supplemented this text by identifying essential doctrinal components and illustrating important doctrinal relationships. ; https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-books/1025/thumbnail.jpg

This is the second event of the Transsystemic Law Series ; In this talk, Dr. Promislow addressed key questions and challenges in pursuing a transsystemic approach to research and teaching administrative law. By outlining some of the moves involved in toggling between state and non-state legal orders in an area of law generally associated with the state, the talk reflected on how a transsystemic approach will address legal principles related to governmental decision-making in Indigenous legal orders, and may also redefine the study of administrative law more generally away from its traditional focus on the principles of judicial review. ; The UVic Graduate Student Law & Society Research Group ; Faculty ; Unreviewed

This survey updates Professor Levinson's 1975 article on the Florida Administrative Procedure Act. The survey examines and reports all appellate decisions, attorney general opinions and 1976 amendments. Collateral to the discussion of the 1976 amendments, the authors focus on and report the results of the first series of amendments enacted in 1975. In addition, a legislatively proposed constitutional amendment, defeated in the last general election, and the implementing bill vetoed by the governor prior to the general election are considered.

Module 1: Unit 1. Scope of Administrative Law Unit 2. Administrative Law v. Constitutional Law Unit 3. Administrative Agencies and Functions Unit 4. Classification of Administrative Powers Module 2: Unit 1. Separation of Powers Unit 2. Rule of Law Unit 3. Constitutional Supremacy Unit 4. Legislative Supremacy Module 3: Unit 1. Delegated Legislation Unit 2. Justification of Delegated Legislation Unit 3. Validity of Delegated Legislation Unit 4. Control of Delegated Legislation Module 4: Unit 1. Decision and Rule Making Procedures Unit 2. Types of Rule Making Procedure Unit 3. Publication of Decisions and Rules Unit 4. Control of Administrative Powers

Abstract no. 12 ; With the introduction of the Bill of Rights in 1991 and the Basic Law in 1997, the demarcation between constitutional law and traditional judicial review in administrative law has become increasingly blurred. In one sense, a challenge against an administrative decision for being contrary to the Basic Law is nothing more than an application of the doctrine of ultra vires under traditional judicial review. Yet the possibility of challenging the vires of the enabling legislation has considerably widened the scope of judicial review, as an administrative decision can be challenged, not just by attacking the decision itself, but also by attacking the vires of the source of powers. This possibility presents new challenges to the judiciary in granting remedies, as the consequences and implications could be much far-reaching. At the same time, the trend of combining constitutional challenges in traditional judicial review applications raises the question how far the existing procedure for judicial review is adequate to meet this new challenge. This paper examines how the Hong Kong courts have risen to these challenges. ; published_or_final_version ; Joint Symposium of three law schools of the Hong Kong University, the National University of Singapore, and the Singapore Management University (HKU-NUS-SMU Symposium), Singapore, 1-2 December 2008.

Is administrative law unlawful? This provocative question has become all the more significant with the expansion of the modern administrative state. While the federal government traditionally could constrain liberty only through acts of Congress and the courts, the executive branch has increasingly come to control Americans through its own administrative rules and adjudication, thus raising disturbing questions about the effect of this sort of state power on American government and society. With Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, Philip Hamburger answers this question in the affirmative, offering a revisionist account of administrative law. Rather than accepting it as a novel power necessitated by modern society, he locates its origins in the medieval and early modern English tradition of royal prerogative. Then he traces resistance to administrative law from the Middle Ages to the present. Medieval parliaments periodically tried to confine the Crown to governing through regular law, but the most effective response was the seventeenth-century development of English constitutional law, which concluded that the government could rule only through the law of the land and the courts, not through administrative edicts. Although the US Constitution pursued this conclusion even more vigorously, administrative power reemerged in the Progressive and New Deal Eras. Since then, Hamburger argues, administrative law has returned American government and society to precisely the sort of consolidated or absolute power that the US Constitution – and constitutions in general – were designed to prevent. With a clear yet many-layered argument that draws on history, law, and legal thought, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? reveals administrative law to be not a benign, natural outgrowth of contemporary government but a pernicious – and profoundly unlawful – return to dangerous pre-constitutional absolutism. ; https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/1028/thumbnail.jpg

Legal scholars view administrative law as alternately shaped by concerns for procedural integrity and issues of political control, and therefore as consisting of largely conflicting rules. But they have overlooked that the Court may be elaborating administrative law, and more particularly, administrative procedures, for a political purpose - to ensure that agency action roughly tracks legislative preferences. Thus, rather than vacillating between procedures and politics, the Court may be striving to negotiate two sorts of politics: congressional control, exercised through administrative procedures, and presidential control, vindicated by presumptive judicial deference. Positive political theorists, meanwhile, have appreciated that administrative procedures can assist Congress in monitoring agencies. But they have not applied their theory to actual administrative law, and their assumptions about judicial behavior cannot predict such law. This Article combines the insights of legal scholars and positive political theorists to offer a better descriptive account and normative defense of the seminal administrative law cases. It shows that the Court has recognized a political use for administrative procedures, as positive political theorists might expect. It contends, however, that to truly understand administrative law, we must see the Court in a way more familiar to legal academics, as sincerely interested in producing acceptable rules for agency decisionmaking. The Court has claimed a role in mediating the strategic needs of both political branches for control of agency action. In so doing, the Court has matched the practical way that agencies operate with a normative theory about how they should operate in the democratic structure.

The following articles, the work of the faculty of the School of Law, constitute the first academic comment on the laws of 1957. For obvious reasons, these articles are not represented to the reader as a complete survey of the legislative session. Rather, they are merely a compilation of comments on Acts which the writers have found to be important, timely, or merely interesting. The Administrative Law section deals with amendments cause veto of Model State Administrative Procedure Act legislation.