Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Ethical Choices: Contested Case Procedures And Judicial Review Applicable To Politicians Versus Other Regulated Actors, Amy Bresnen
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
The general purpose of this paper is to provide law students and young lawyers with an overview for accessing, in the context of Texas agencies, these legislatively-delegated adjudicative, or quasijudicial, powers and explain how agency contested case decisions are reviewed by the courts. This is important for lawyers to understand in representing a client, be it an individual or entity, whose interests are affected by administrative proceedings within regulatory agencies. To accomplish this goal, the paper discusses the two most common methods of judicial review and contrasts the standard proceedings for contested cases at the State Office of Administrative Hearings …
Transforming News: How Mediation Principles Can Depolarize Public Talk, Carol Pauli
Transforming News: How Mediation Principles Can Depolarize Public Talk, Carol Pauli
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
News media interviews bring opposing voices into the public forum where, ideally, audience members can deliberate and reach democratic compromise. But in today's politically polarized atmosphere, partisans increasingly accuse each other of being a threat to the country, and prospects for compromise have suffered. Journalists have been urged to take a more affirmative role, promoting problem solving and opposing conflict. They have stopped short, citing professional norms that demand a stance of neutral detachment. This article turns to the principles of transformative mediation. Like journalism, it is detached from any goal of settlement. It aims instead at increasing the capacity …
King V. Burwell: Where Were The Tax Professors?, Andy S. Grewal
King V. Burwell: Where Were The Tax Professors?, Andy S. Grewal
Pepperdine Law Review
King v. Burwell drew unusually wide attention for a tax case. Members of the public, the mainstream media, health care professionals, Washington think tanks, and constitutional, administrative, and health law professors, to name a few groups, all debated the merits of the challengers’ arguments. Everyone, it seems, had something to say about the case — except tax professors. This contribution to Pepperdine Law Review’s Tax Law Symposium explores three potential reasons for the tax professoriate’s reticence. It concludes that none of those reasons withstand scrutiny, and going forward, tax professors should play a more active role in cases like this.