Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Jurisdiction
Ripeness And Reviewable Orders In Administrative Law, Louis L. Jaffe
Ripeness And Reviewable Orders In Administrative Law, Louis L. Jaffe
Michigan Law Review
The requirement of "ripeness" as a condition for judicial review is not so much a definable doctrine as a compendious portmanteau, a group of related doctrines arising in diverse but analogically similar situations. In its most general sense ripeness is a requirement not of the administrative action to be reviewed but of the judicial controversy between the plaintiff and the agency. Consider the case where an agency has gone no further than to threaten a certain action which the plaintiff in an equity or declaratory proceeding claims would be contrary to law: here, in all strictness, the controversy concerns …
The Proposed United States Administrative Court, Robert M. Cooper
The Proposed United States Administrative Court, Robert M. Cooper
Michigan Law Review
The last half century has witnessed a constant, almost relentless, increase of governmental responsibilities and services in both federal and state spheres of control. Due to the changing needs of our economic and social order, the desire for speedy, efficient and inexpensive settlement of controversies and the imperative need of specialized administrators, the task of performing these new functions has not infrequently been delegated to administrative tribunals or commissions. Neither the legislature nor the judiciary was capable of administering the myriad details or countless controversies which inevitably accompanied these new functions of government. As a consequence an administrative branch of …
Administrative Law - Statutory Interpretation - Conclusiveness Of Decision
Administrative Law - Statutory Interpretation - Conclusiveness Of Decision
Michigan Law Review
Pursuant to an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the government had paid defendant $487,116.31 as the deficit incurred during federal control and due defendant under section 204 of the Transportation Act of 1920. The Commission later reopened the proceeding and annulled the order because it had erroneously interpreted the word "deficit" in the statute to mean a decrease in net railroad operating income in the federal control period as compared with the corresponding months of the test period from July 1, 1914, to June 30, 1917, instead of a "red ink deficit." The government then sued to recover the …