Sentences with phrase «in judicial decision making»

2013 Craig Jones, «The Troubling New Science of Legal Persuasion: Heuristics and Biases in Judicial Decision Making» (2013) 41 Adv. Q. 48.

The new Courts Law essay is from Suja Thomas (Illinois), reviewing Andrew J. Wistrich and Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Implicit Bias in Judicial Decision Making: How It Affects Judgment and What Judges Can Do About It, a forthcoming book chapter in a volume exploring implicit bias in the judicial system.

Indeed, judges» personal opinions are presumed to be non-factors in judicial decision making as judges are charged to uphold the letter of the law regardless of their personal beliefs.

It is «The Troubling New Science of Legal Persuasion: Heuristics and Biases in Judicial Decision Making», published in the April 2013 edition of The Advocates» Quarterly (and accessible through HeinOnline).

Not exact matches

A judicial review («JR») is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body; they are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the conclusion reached.

«I think there are implications in a narrow area such as judicial decision - making, as well as in a more general area of «understanding and explaining human behavior,»» says Mocan.

And in the crisis, emergency decisions were made that have been effectively removed from judicial review, including violations of state corporate law and issues raised by the Constitution.

JUDGING THE JUDGES Patrick McKinley Brennan's review «The Forms Behind the Laws» (April) begs fundamental questions of interpretation, blurs the distinction between legislating and judging, and proposes a mode of judicial interpretation that would, in its practical application, be indistinguishable from judges who make decisions based on personal preference.

Patrick Brennan replies: Upon reading Joseph Viviano's charges against me, I had to ask myself: Who is this Brennan that «proposes a mode of judicial interpretation that would, in its practical application, be indistinguishable from judges who make decisions based on preferences?»

Among them are the rights to: bullet joint parenting; bullet joint adoption; bullet joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); bullet status as next - of - kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; bullet joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; bullet dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; bullet immigration and residency for partners from other countries; bullet inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; bullet joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; bullet inheritance of jointly - owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); bullet benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; bullet spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; bullet veterans» discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; bullet joint filing of customs claims when traveling; bullet wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bullet bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; bullet decision - making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; bullet crime victims» recovery benefits; bullet loss of consortium tort benefits; bullet domestic violence protection orders; bullet judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; bullet and more...

But doesn't Iran have Islamic scholars and Imans making decisions at the highest levels of the Government and Judicial systems in Iran?

Unconscionable conduct (agrees with NFF that they have not provided protection and support reforms «to provide transparency in the supply chain» and recognise that «certain classes of suppliers... are predisposed to suffering from a special disadvantage...»; misuse of market power (legal framework must «level the balance of market power in negotiations...», «ensure transparency in the transmission of market prices» and «not allow for final market risks to be borne by the primary producer» and provide «transparency of contract processes» - specifically, Canegrowers supports effects test and a process giving ACCC greater power to «regulate anti-competitive behaviour and impose penalties», shifting «the decisions framework from the judicial system to a regulatory system» which would make it more accessible to small producers); collective bargaining (notes limits of Sugar Industry Act (Qld); authorisation and notification approval costly and limited and not a viable alternative - peak bodies should be able to «commence and progress collective bargaining with mills on behalf of their members» and current threshold too restrictive)» competitive neutrality (mixed outcomes - perverse outcomes in the case of natural monopolies - suggest remove «application of competitive neutrality provisions to natural monopoly essential services»)

Perhaps the minister should look at the quality of decision - making in his own department and its agencies before seeking to limit judicial review.

If the Supreme Court wasn't functional for an extended period then various different and contradictory decisions made by the appeals courts would build up and there would be different «laws of the land» in each federal judicial district.

So, for example, instead of just utilizing money to arm police officers in schools, we also are allowing individual school communities to make decisions about putting more mental health for students, to provide advocacy in the support system and not just move kids out of school or automatically engage them in the judicial system that we know can happen too often.

To make a decision about whether or not to disclose a crime or violation and participate in the judicial or conduct process and / or criminal justice process free from pressure by the School;

The declaration should also guarantee procedural rights of peoples and communities, in particular access to environmental information, public participation in decision making and access to judicial remedies, in order to enable citizens and communities to play an active role in protecting their health and environment from air pollution.

To add to the public's frustration, Gov. Inslee has chosen to appeal the judicial decision in the youth's favor, after he made public statements that he was happy about it.

Public participation (described as access to information and judicial remedy, as well as participation in decision making) in development projects not only has legal precedent in international accords but also has been incorporated into the procedures of international lending organizations.

Finally, he brought yet another judicial review application in Ontario to, in the Court's words, «reconsider the surrender decision made by a previous Minister of Justice and confirmed by another Minister of Justice.»

The aim, for example, to broaden the range of judicial decisions that are made by non-judges (and even non-lawyers), under the «supervision» of judges, is more concerned with greater centralisation of services and with savings in the judicial salaries budget.

One is the ability of a decision making body to participate in or commence judicial review proceedings.

Whatever the outcome it needs to be recognised that policy views of the extent to which courts and tribunals should be able to interfere with business decisions will determine whether any change in the law, judicial or legislative is made.

These Court decisions make new law that are precedents in later judicial reviews.

In addition to these administrative mechanisms, a patient may turn to the courts for judicial review of either the substantive decision (i.e. the decision to cover (or not) a particular medical service) or the process used to make that decision.

The way in which the Trial Chamber reacted to Alternate Judge Sow's decision to make a public statement on the Taylor Trial; the exclusion of his statement from the official transcript of the hearing; and the recent information suggesting irregularities in the process which the SCSL judges invoked to discipline their judicial colleague for alleged misconduct all underscore the need for greater transparency on this issue than we have so far received from the SCSL.

And although the Diocesan Bishop controls respondent Monastery of St. Sava and is the principal officer of respondent property - holding corporations, the civil courts must accept that consequence as the incidental effect of an ecclesiastical determination that is not subject to judicial abrogation, having been reached by the final church judicatory in which authority to make the decision resides.

We also represent employers before all levels of courts in wrongful dismissal actions, occupational health and safety matters, judicial reviews of decisions made by administrative tribunals and to obtain injunctive relief.

He has lectured in Canada and abroad on diverse legal topics, and has published on such subjects as judicial decision - making, Canada - US trade, the law of evidence and constitutional law.

Excerpts on the decision to publish and whether to issue summary affirmances might be helpful in training externs and clerks in a judicial opinion writing course to give the students background in some of the decisions judges must make in addition to how to decide cases and write the opinions.

You may want to consider judicial review if you were a part of a dispute resolution proceeding at the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) which did not go in your favour and you believe that the decision made by the arbitrator at the hearing was unreasonable or unfair.

In order to perform their duty effectively, lawyers research on laws, the intent of those laws and the judicial decisions that are relevant to their client's circumstance so as to make a knowledgeable decision.

The key is ensuring judicial officers consider in criminal (i.e., child abuse) and custody cases the broad range impact abuse has on children to make more informed decisions on placement, parenting time, and to protect children from further mistreatment from an abusive parent.

It seems that the overall goal as to the publication of specifically judicial decisions is to make accessible in a form which is not just verifiably exact but also as an unalterable text.

In recent years, there has been growing judicial emphasis on hearing and exploring the «voice» and «wishes and feelings» of the child when making decisions about their welfare.

Judge Your Judges, a project of public radio station WNYC in New York that will focus on enabling voters to make more knowledgeable decisions about New York judicial elections.

Reasons should ensure transparency in decision making, allow for accountability for decisions (through judicial review or just generally) and be accessible to the average reader.

Making distinctions like this between categories of decision - maker in substantive judicial review is, in my opinion, a step in the wrong direction.

But they have a duty to themselves, participants in their decision - making processes, and to the public, to speak clearly through their reasons for decision, and not in whispered affidavits or legal submissions in subsequent judicial review proceedings.

Our lawyers have acted for architects, engineers, lawyers, dentists, and accountants in professional errors and omissions claims, advised clients before professional regulatory bodies, acted for professional administrative bodies, provided advice regarding investigations conducted by administrative authorities, and have acted in judicial reviews of decisions made by professional regulatory bodies.

While it is routine for top judges to make speeches (for example in 2011 and in 2007) and judicial decisions reflecting the need for greater access to justice in Canada.

It is important to see that judicial decisions are, in the words of Elaine Craig, «normative — they make a claim to truth.

The courts have always been zealous in preserving their supervisory jurisdiction by way of judicial review of administrative decision - making.

In turn, that data should be used to make decisions about the composition of the judicial nominating commission.

Although s 37 of IA 2005 provides immunity from civil claims for inquiry panel members, s 38 implicitly confirms that that immunity does not serve to preclude judicial review claims in respect of decisions made by a member or members of the inquiry panel.

What I said in relation to that was: «Over time, a minimalist approach to judicial decision making is likely to stultify the growth of the law and leave practitioners with a body of precedent that is very fact - oriented, giving little guidance to how future cases will be decided.»

On the one hand, when the chips are down, ODR determinations will, in practice, differ very little from conventional judicial decision - making.

The public interest may form an important element in any discretionary decision made in judicial review proceedings.

The Commission studies what laws may be needed, makes recommendations to the legislature, and is cited in judicial decisions.

The respondent in judicial review who seeks to defend the statutory decision will usually assert that reasonableness be applied as the standard of review, such that the reviewing court affords deference to the decision and making it less likely the court will interfere with the decision.