Sentences with phrase «questions of administrative law»

My primary focus is thus relatively narrow, confined to technical questions of administrative law.

Not exact matches

On the first question, a cursory review by Woodstock Times of the local ethics law — and of Article 3 of the state Administrative Procedure Act, which complements and informs the local law — found no provision directing the Ethics Board to omit the specific charge when it notifies individuals that they are the subject of a complaint.

The General Attorney occupation covers professional legal positions involved in preparing cases for trial and / or the trial of cases before a court or an administrative body or persons having quasi-judicial power; rendering legal advice and services with respect to questions, regulations, practices, or other matters falling within the purview of a Federal Government agency (this may include conducting investigations to obtain evidentiary data); preparing interpretative and administrative orders, rules, or regulations to give effect to the provisions of governing statutes or other requirements of law; drafting, negotiating, or examining contracts or other legal documents required by the agency's activities; drafting, preparing formal comments, or otherwise making substantive recommendations with respect to proposed legislation; editing and preparing for publication statutes enacted by Congress, opinions or discussions of a court, commission, or board; drafting and reviewing decisions for consideration and adoption by agency officials.

I've edited it, you mentioned administrative rules - there is administrative law which perhaps contains the kinds of rules I'm looking for so I've removed part of the question.

Some progress is being made, but it is in part a question of administrative coordination (which is happening), in part a question of resources (not necessarily easy to find), in part a question of law (probably the easy part).

For example, if Law A says that courts may review all administrative tribunal decisions on questions of fact and law, and Law B says that in the context of Tribunal X, a court may only review a decision on questions of law, Law B will clearly prevail as the more specific statuLaw A says that courts may review all administrative tribunal decisions on questions of fact and law, and Law B says that in the context of Tribunal X, a court may only review a decision on questions of law, Law B will clearly prevail as the more specific statulaw, and Law B says that in the context of Tribunal X, a court may only review a decision on questions of law, Law B will clearly prevail as the more specific statuLaw B says that in the context of Tribunal X, a court may only review a decision on questions of law, Law B will clearly prevail as the more specific statulaw, Law B will clearly prevail as the more specific statuLaw B will clearly prevail as the more specific statute.

Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 17 - 130, presenting the question of whether Securities and Exchange Commission administrative law judges are Officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause.

The Supreme Court of Canada has been feverishly productive in the field of administrative law since the Fall of 2011, rendering decisions on standard of review (questions of law, jurisdictional error and labour arbitrators), the right to reasons, issue estoppel, attempts to pre-empt the administrative decision - making process, and review of municipal by - laws.

An administrative decision maker's refusal to grant an adjournment is a question of law.

In appeal on a point of law, the two cases were then brought before the German Federal Administrative Court, which decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union:

Administrative law as a practice area sometimes gets a bad rap for being comprised of Byzantine rules of procedure (often completely unique to the specific tribunal in question), frustrating decision makers, and shifting standards of review.

The first step in substantive judicial review under Canadian administrative law is to identify the standard of review applicable to the question or questions in the impugned statutory decision.

Counsel from administrative law chambers in London was completely dismissive on the question of whether these could possibly be private law proceedings: of course it's public law.

A question of law that is of «central importance to the legal system... and outside the... specialized area of expertise» of the administrative decision maker will always attract a correctness standard (Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., at para. 62).

The court decided to review Issues 2, 3, 5 and 6 on a «deferential standard of reasonableness,» but applied correctness to Issues 1 and 4: «While I acknowledge that in the administrative law context a tribunal may develop its own procedures as to admissibility without the recognized strictures found in the judicial rules of evidence, whereas issues # 1 and # 4 principally involve specific questions of law and concurrent issues involving breaches of natural justice or procedural fairness, I will apply a standard of correctness.

Anticipating Legal Process approaches to administrative law, he argued that judicial wisdom depends on identifying types of questions that «admit of reduction to general rules» best announced by courts.

Day One's programming continued with a question and answer session with the Office of Administrative Law Judges, who discussed case assignments and allotments, how the various district offices operate, and provided guidance in practicing before the OALJ.

Once these debates are resolved and other administrative questions are addressed, a law school writing center can find its proper place in the legal writing program, and enhance the experience of the students who engage with it.

If the nature of the question pertains to issues of law that are outside the expertise of the administrative board, then the «correctness» standard is more likely to be applied.

Canadian administrative law is different in many ways from that of other Commonwealth jurisdictions, but on one question it (for the most part) clings doggedly to an old mantra: procedural questions are for the courts alone to decide, without any deference to decision - makers.

It held that, with rare exceptions, administrative tribunals with the authority to decide questions of law, are courts of competent jurisdiction within the meaning of s. 24 (1) of the Charter and can grant Charter remedies in in the course of carrying out their statutory mandates.

Supreme Court of Canada confirms that administrative tribunals with the authority to decide questions of law are courts of competent jurisdiction under s. 24 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that administrative tribunals with the authority to decide questions of law are courts of competent jurisdiction under s. 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For example, procedural questions may turn on unfamiliar sources of enacted law — such as court local rules or judges» administrative or standing orders — that may be more conveniently found on a given court's official website than on Lexis or Westlaw, if they are available on subscription databases at all.60 And for practicing attorneys, jurisdiction - specific forms and the previous work of other attorneys who have done similar things can be valuable resources.61 So legal blogs, firm white papers, and actual filings available through PACER or Bloomberg Law can be valuable tools — at least as a jumping - off poilaw — such as court local rules or judges» administrative or standing orders — that may be more conveniently found on a given court's official website than on Lexis or Westlaw, if they are available on subscription databases at all.60 And for practicing attorneys, jurisdiction - specific forms and the previous work of other attorneys who have done similar things can be valuable resources.61 So legal blogs, firm white papers, and actual filings available through PACER or Bloomberg Law can be valuable tools — at least as a jumping - off poiLaw can be valuable tools — at least as a jumping - off point.

Bluntly stated, yet with great respect; the law has spent more than forty years looking for the true jurisdictional question, twenty years trying to assess the relative expertise of tribunals, ten years trying to convince everyone of a meaningful distinction between two deferential standards of review and now another possible lifetime wandering the administrative galaxy looking for questions of law of central importance to the legal system.

They warn that grounding tribunal expertise merely in its institutional setting risks making the presumption of deference irrefutable: «Courts must not infer from the mere creation of an administrative tribunal that it necessarily possesses greater relative expertise in all matters it decides, especially on questions of law.»

A question that the Supreme Court has struggled with for decades seems unlikely to be resolved by the end - of - term grumpy ramblings of a legal ethics professor who dabbles in administrative law.

Also see Alice Woolley's ABlawg post on this decision «True Questions of Jurisdiction: Administrative Law's Unicorns» here.

[Editor's note, also see Alice Woolley's ABlawg on this decision True Questions of Jurisdiction: Administrative Law's Unicorns]

Indeed, in Administrative Law, Wade and Forsyth go further, suggesting that Anisminic amounted not to the interpretation of the provision but to judicial rejection of it: the judgment, they write, rendered «shall not be questioned» ouster clauses «totally ineffective», such that «[t] he policy of the courts... becomes in effect one of total disobedience to Parliament».

There are a lot of cases where intelligent and very capable appellate judges are trying to navigate the tension between general principles of administrative law and general questions of importance to the legal community....

The Court responded to the submission that Lavallee did not dictate the outcome in this case because the search and seizure power in question was not «seeking evidence of criminal wrongdoing» but was rather «in connection with an administrative law regulatory compliance regime» by stating inter alia that:

But the Supreme Court's other decisions make it clear that courts must defer to an administrative tribunal's interpretation of law, except on legal questions considered «of central importance for the legal system» (a category that notably includes constitutional questions).

In the United States, standards of review are (sometimes nominally) governed by a statute, the Administrative Procedure Act («APA»), which separates questions of law, fact, and policy.

To the extent that it is required by the Rule of Law principle, judicial review of administrative action, including correctness review on questions of law, is a constitutional requiremeLaw principle, judicial review of administrative action, including correctness review on questions of law, is a constitutional requiremelaw, is a constitutional requirement.

In administrative law cases, it is always necessary to ask «what the appropriate standard of review is for this question decided by this decision maker» (at para. 71, emphasis original): «The contextual standard of review analysis ensures that legislative intent is respected and the rule of law is protected when courts review decisions of administrative actors» (at para. 89).

Earlier this month, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal issued a decision which, if legally predictable, offers us a useful opportunity to think about some serious questions in Canadian administrative law.

But in administrative law, the combination of a refusal to extend a constitutional requirement of adjudicative independence to administrative tribunals and the emphasis on deference to such tribunals» decisions even on legal questions blurs that line into invisibility.

The question of deference on questions of procedural fairness will continue to hang over Canadian administrative law until it is argued and authoritatively resolved by the Supreme Court.

What in Carter appears as a question of Charter rights will give way to a far more vexing puzzle of administrative law.

This is a question about legislation, including constitutive rules and administrative law To give some context, I am interested in legal reasoning (as in a logic of law), but I am not a legal - expert.

Yet somehow when answering the question these students lost access to the knowledge that they possess about the functioning of the legal system and the ability to apply administrative law concepts with which, as demonstrated by their other answers, they were relatively familiar.

The administrative law examination we assigned had three questions, two very typical of the sorts of questions that students might have expected to see given past exams and the problems we had done in class, and one that was structurally quite different.

[3] On the basis of the applicant's cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court by order dated 9.5.2012, No. 6 Ads 18/2012 -82, reversed in accordance with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union concerning the interpretation of European Union law on the Court and presented him the following questions: 6 Ads 18/2012 First Excludes Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes nazaměstna not persons and their families moving within the Community (Regulation of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems), from its scope ratione personae citizen of the Czech Republic, which, in circumstances such as those in the present case, before 1 First 1993 subject to the laws governing pension defunct State (Czech and Slovak Federal Republic), Acting in accordance with these periods sčlánkem 20 of the Treaty concluded on the 29th 10th 1992 between the Czech and Slovak republikouo Social Security registered in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 (Annex II of the European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2004) are regarded as periods Slovak Republic apodlevnitrostátního rules created by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic at the same time as the time Czech Republic?

On the administrative end, law clerks do a lot of the same things other administrative assistants do — answering phones, filing documents, and fielding client and prospective client questions, to name a few.

If the answer to question 2 positive: 3 Prevents European Union law by the national court, the highest court of the state in the area of administrative justice, against whose decisions are not permissible remedies, was in accordance ¡ svnitrostátním law bound in law brought by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, where it appears that such assessments are Acting in accordance with Union law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union?

Medical Assistant — Duties & Responsibilities Provide an informed point of contact to patient, communicating effectively with other medical staff and interested parties to facilitate the efficient execution of procedures for patients as well as ensure timely information flow Execute frequent patient evaluations upon escort to examination rooms, including the monitoring and tracking of vital signs and assistance with minor procedures including EKG, Pap smears, cultures, urinalysis, and others Coordinate all pharmacy - and insurance - related aspects between doctors, physicians, and licensed nursing professionals, including prescription submission, insurance pre-authorization, and referrals Alert physicians to any change in condition and raise concerns when necessary Provide support and supervision to other staff and coordinate all care efforts, including material and equipment prep, procedure and appointment scheduling, vaccine administration, patient charting, and records management Collaborate in the execution of all plans of treatment, providing assistance and answering questions related to all instructions for home care Aid in the delivery of informational support to patients, families, and other interested parties, helping them understand conditions, treatments, and potential outcomes Develop and maintain competencies and knowledge of medical techniques, information, conditions, treatments, medications, and potential interactions Adhere strictly to local, state, and federal health - related laws, as well as facility policies, rules, and procedures, in the administration of care and treatment of patients Address patient and doctor queries, resolving them in an expedited manner, while participating in training practices to continue advanced education and leverage facility resources and personnel Track, file, and view important medical documents, receipts, insurance records, and billing invoices on a daily basis, organizing and managing sensitive files and patient information in an efficient manner Maintain patient files, entering results into respective databases while auditing for accuracy and completion Assist other personnel with various duties as assigned to facilitate efficient administrative and business operations

License Law and Administrative Rules Commission Policies Renewal Documents Approved Education Providers and Courses Continuing Education Requirements Online License Transfers Newsletters Fee Schedule Search for Litigation Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network Unlicensed Practice of Real Estate Frequently Asked Questions