Comparative Administrative Law
Show Less

Comparative Administrative Law

Edited by Susan Rose-Ackerman and Peter L. Lindseth

This research handbook is a comprehensive overview of the field of comparative administrative law. The specially commissioned chapters in this landmark volume represent a broad, multi-method approach combining perspectives from history and social science with more strictly legal analyses. Comparisons of the United States, continental Europe, and the British Commonwealth are complemented by contributions that focus on Latin America, Africa, and Asia. The work aims to stimulate comparative research on public law, reaching across countries and scholarly disciplines.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 23: The Origins of American-style Judicial Review

Thomas W. Merrill


Thomas W. Merrill American administrative law is characterized by a number of distinguishing features. Perhaps the most unique aspect is its adoption of an appellate review model for defining the role of courts in reviewing agency action. The model is borrowed from the understandings that govern the relationship between appeals courts and trial courts in civil litigation – which in turn build on the relationship between judges and juries. At their core, these understandings presuppose a division of functions grounded in the distinction between law and fact (Louis 1986). On issues of fact, the initiating institution is understood to have superior competence, and the reviewing institution will defer to its findings. On issues of law, the reviewing institution is understood to have superior competence, and will decide the matter independently. The appellate review model has three salient features: (1) The evidentiary record on which the reviewing institution makes its decision is exclusively the record generated by the initiating institution. If the reviewing institution determines that additional evidence is critical to a proper decision, it will remand to the initiating institution for development of a new record, rather than take evidence itself. (2) The standard of review varies depending on whether the issue falls within the area of superior competence of the initiating institution or of the reviewing institution. (3) The division of competence is anchored in the distinction between law and fact. The exact line of division will often be disputed and will shift over time and from one context to...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.