Sentences with phrase «majority of administrative decisions»

I would suggest that it is also important to focus on the other aspects of administrative law, given that the vast majority of administrative decisions never go on to judicial review.

Not exact matches

Justice Thomas also concluded that «the majority's application of administrative preclusion raises serious constitutional concerns,» because allowing an agency decision to have preclusive effect in a later proceeding before a federal court may violate Article III.

The majority opinion justifies the need to merge reasonableness simpliciter with patent unreasonableness on now familiar grounds that: (i) the two standards are impossible to distinguish in application, despite good intentions in selecting a «middle ground» standard where pragmatic factors point both for and against judicial deference; and (ii) patent unreasonableness contemplates judicial endorsement of an «unreasonable» administrative decision.

Administrative Patent Judge James A. Tartal, who dissented from the three - judge panel decision, wrote the majority opinion for the five - judge panel, incorporating much of his earlier dissent as the new majority opinion.

Moreover, a majority of the court criticized the USPTO's attempt to establish rules through Board decisions, namely the MasterImage and Idle Free decisions, rather than formal administrative rulemaking under the APA.

A labour arbitrator said that it was, but the Court (unanimous on this point) easily rejected that view, again without addressing either the question of the standard of review or the administrative decision - maker's reasoning (though the majority did discuss it at length on the other issue in the case, which concerned the interpretation of a collective agreement).

Abstract In a nutshell, the majority of the Court in Meadows v. Minister for Justice held that proportionality would be relevant in determining the reasonableness or unreasonableness of an administrative decision affecting rights.

Justice Karakatsanis, writing for the majority, held that courts should give broad deference to the decisions of administrative tribunals.

Section 253.1 (5) provides that the section must not be construed as limiting the tribunal's ability at the request of a party has been held to derive from the 1989 Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, in which the majority held that an administrative tribunal may revisit a decision only if authorized by statute or if there has been a slip or error within certain exceptions.