Suchergebnisse

Mastering Administrative Law is designed as a supplement to law school courses in administrative law or as an introduction to the subject for lawyers trained in other legal systems. The book explicitly and in plain language identifies the functions of the various principles of administrative law. It covers all the basic administrative law topics, including how the administrative process fits into our governmental structure, typical agency procedures (e.g., rulemaking, adjudication, investigation, etc.), important statutes affecting agencies (e.g., the freedom of information act), constitutional limits on legislatures and agencies and the limited but critical role of the courts in helping monitor the process. A number of classroom-tested graphics—charts, tables, diagrams—supplemented this text by identifying essential doctrinal components and illustrating important doctrinal relationships. ; https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-books/1025/thumbnail.jpg

In federal and state governments in the United States, administrative agencies are often given broad delegated powers to affect policy, subject only to the substantive and procedural limits contained in the Constitution and in statutes. In our legal system, the basic function of judicial review of agency action is to keep administrative agencies within the bounds set for them by these legislative and constitutional commands. It is understood that courts have no significant policy-making authority; they should not extend their own function beyond the policing of these constitutional and statutory boundaries. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Chapter 34.05 RCW, contains several types of information about judicial review. It identifies what matters are reviewable, how and where judicial review is obtained, who can seek judicial review, when review can be obtained, and what review consists of once it is secured. --Publisher's description

The Washington Legislature passed a new Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") in the spring of 1988, effective July 1, 1989. The Article guides the reader through the new APA, discusses its connection to general principles of administrative law and the policies underlying the Act, describes its organization, suggests solutions to interpretative problems, and recommends methods for evaluating future proposed amendments to the Act.

Current debates about the legality of public school funding systems recognize that existing systems combine state, local, and federal revenue sources. The exact nature of the governmental partnership involved is seldom specified, however, and the result is that the institutional relationships are not clearly seen. This failure of perception leads to difficulties when a court is asked to determine the constitutionality of such systems. Two recent state school finance opinions will be analyzed here to compare two different styles of judicial intervention. This article does not deal with all school finance litigation nor with all styles of judicial involvement in that litigation. The cases discussed, however, represent two typical approaches, and the contrast between them is instructive. Some general observations about the nature of the state-local partnership precede the case discussions.

This article will examine the dispute as it has arisen in Washington, a state which, while an early leader in the fair provision of education, has fallen into the same patterns of inequity as most other states. Unfortunately, the magnitude of these inequities has yet to penetrate the legislative perception, and the character of the problem has yet to be fully understood by the state supreme court—as demonstrated by Northshore. It is hoped that the data and discussion presented here will contribute to a better comprehension of the problem.