In a takeoff from Malcolm Gladwell's best - selling book Blink, Professor Chris Guthrie drilled
into judicial error rates in Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases, 93 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (2007).
Not exact matches
Rather than equating the FSA's reliance on the privileged material with the public law concept of taking
into account an irrelevant matter, the judge held that it was more accurate to consider the
error as equivalent to a
judicial or administrative body acting, in part, on inadmissible evidence.
We are at a loss to understand upon what principle of law, applicable to appellate jurisdiction, it can be supposed that this court has not
judicial authority to correct the last - mentioned
error because they had before corrected the former, or by what process of reasoning it can be made out that the
error of an inferior court in actually pronouncing judgment for one of the parties in a case in which it had no jurisdiction can not be looked
into or corrected by this court because we have decided a similar question presented in the pleadings.
So we've suffered through categorizations
into jurisdictional
error and non-jurisdictional
error, legislative, administrative, quasi-
judicial and
judicial decisions, categories of correctness, reasonableness and patent unreasonableness and, now, categories of correctness and reasonableness.
When you throw
judicial error into the mix, law really is the wild west in terms of ethical enforcement and
error detection.