An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review
U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final "judicial" decisions, a...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Matthew D Heins [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2015 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Northwestern University law review - Chicago, Ill. : School, 1953, 109(2015), 3, Seite 773 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:109 ; year:2015 ; number:3 ; pages:773 |
| Links: |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC1964510147 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a2200265 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC1964510147 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20220215160906.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 160206s2015 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a PQ20160617 |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC1964510147 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)GBVOLC1964510147 | ||
| 035 | |a (PRQ)g1107-f4e7b719b645bda117b0315a40001182e59d75059dabd29c93b640e6be6e19fb0 | ||
| 035 | |a (KEY)0031578820150000109000300773appealtocommonsensewhyunappealabledistrictcourtdec | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 340 |q DNB |
| 084 | |a 86.00 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 0 | |a Matthew D Heins |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 3 | |a An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2015 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final "judicial" decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are "administrative." Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating litigants who are told they cannot receive direct review of their purportedly administrative case. Yet because the distinction is ill defined, and because alternative avenues of review are in reality unavailable, "administrative" has proven broad and unforgiving. This Note critiques the tenuous distinction between administrative and judicial, examining fee reimbursement decisions under the Criminal Justice Act to pinpoint where the line is, where it should be, and how courts should explain its location. If there is to be a line separating administrative from judicial, it should be sharply drawn with an eye to the connectedness of the litigants and the dispute to the inner workings of the court. If administrative decisions remain unreviewable, judicial consistency and legitimacy demand that "administrative" be a narrow classification. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Mandamus | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Judicial review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Laws, regulations and rules | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Federal courts | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Appellate procedure | |
| 650 | 4 | |a State court decisions | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Supreme Court decisions | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Federal court decisions | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Fees & charges | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Northwestern University law review |d Chicago, Ill. : School, 1953 |g 109(2015), 3, Seite 773 |w (DE-627)168199327 |w (DE-600)702026-0 |w (DE-576)015942856 |x 0029-3571 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:109 |g year:2015 |g number:3 |g pages:773 |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u http://search.proquest.com/docview/1722656067 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-JUR | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2041 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2062 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 86.00 |q AVZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 109 |j 2015 |e 3 |h 773 | ||
| author_variant |
m d h mdh |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:00293571:2015----::npeloomneswynpelbeititordcsoshude |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2015 |
| bklnumber |
86.00 |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| allfields |
PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1964510147 (DE-599)GBVOLC1964510147 (PRQ)g1107-f4e7b719b645bda117b0315a40001182e59d75059dabd29c93b640e6be6e19fb0 (KEY)0031578820150000109000300773appealtocommonsensewhyunappealabledistrictcourtdec DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB 86.00 bkl Matthew D Heins verfasserin aut An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final "judicial" decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are "administrative." Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating litigants who are told they cannot receive direct review of their purportedly administrative case. Yet because the distinction is ill defined, and because alternative avenues of review are in reality unavailable, "administrative" has proven broad and unforgiving. This Note critiques the tenuous distinction between administrative and judicial, examining fee reimbursement decisions under the Criminal Justice Act to pinpoint where the line is, where it should be, and how courts should explain its location. If there is to be a line separating administrative from judicial, it should be sharply drawn with an eye to the connectedness of the litigants and the dispute to the inner workings of the court. If administrative decisions remain unreviewable, judicial consistency and legitimacy demand that "administrative" be a narrow classification. Mandamus Judicial review Laws, regulations and rules Federal courts Appellate procedure State court decisions Supreme Court decisions Federal court decisions Fees & charges Enthalten in Northwestern University law review Chicago, Ill. : School, 1953 109(2015), 3, Seite 773 (DE-627)168199327 (DE-600)702026-0 (DE-576)015942856 0029-3571 nnns volume:109 year:2015 number:3 pages:773 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1722656067 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 86.00 AVZ AR 109 2015 3 773 |
| spelling |
PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1964510147 (DE-599)GBVOLC1964510147 (PRQ)g1107-f4e7b719b645bda117b0315a40001182e59d75059dabd29c93b640e6be6e19fb0 (KEY)0031578820150000109000300773appealtocommonsensewhyunappealabledistrictcourtdec DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB 86.00 bkl Matthew D Heins verfasserin aut An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final "judicial" decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are "administrative." Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating litigants who are told they cannot receive direct review of their purportedly administrative case. Yet because the distinction is ill defined, and because alternative avenues of review are in reality unavailable, "administrative" has proven broad and unforgiving. This Note critiques the tenuous distinction between administrative and judicial, examining fee reimbursement decisions under the Criminal Justice Act to pinpoint where the line is, where it should be, and how courts should explain its location. If there is to be a line separating administrative from judicial, it should be sharply drawn with an eye to the connectedness of the litigants and the dispute to the inner workings of the court. If administrative decisions remain unreviewable, judicial consistency and legitimacy demand that "administrative" be a narrow classification. Mandamus Judicial review Laws, regulations and rules Federal courts Appellate procedure State court decisions Supreme Court decisions Federal court decisions Fees & charges Enthalten in Northwestern University law review Chicago, Ill. : School, 1953 109(2015), 3, Seite 773 (DE-627)168199327 (DE-600)702026-0 (DE-576)015942856 0029-3571 nnns volume:109 year:2015 number:3 pages:773 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1722656067 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 86.00 AVZ AR 109 2015 3 773 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1964510147 (DE-599)GBVOLC1964510147 (PRQ)g1107-f4e7b719b645bda117b0315a40001182e59d75059dabd29c93b640e6be6e19fb0 (KEY)0031578820150000109000300773appealtocommonsensewhyunappealabledistrictcourtdec DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB 86.00 bkl Matthew D Heins verfasserin aut An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final "judicial" decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are "administrative." Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating litigants who are told they cannot receive direct review of their purportedly administrative case. Yet because the distinction is ill defined, and because alternative avenues of review are in reality unavailable, "administrative" has proven broad and unforgiving. This Note critiques the tenuous distinction between administrative and judicial, examining fee reimbursement decisions under the Criminal Justice Act to pinpoint where the line is, where it should be, and how courts should explain its location. If there is to be a line separating administrative from judicial, it should be sharply drawn with an eye to the connectedness of the litigants and the dispute to the inner workings of the court. If administrative decisions remain unreviewable, judicial consistency and legitimacy demand that "administrative" be a narrow classification. Mandamus Judicial review Laws, regulations and rules Federal courts Appellate procedure State court decisions Supreme Court decisions Federal court decisions Fees & charges Enthalten in Northwestern University law review Chicago, Ill. : School, 1953 109(2015), 3, Seite 773 (DE-627)168199327 (DE-600)702026-0 (DE-576)015942856 0029-3571 nnns volume:109 year:2015 number:3 pages:773 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1722656067 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 86.00 AVZ AR 109 2015 3 773 |
| allfieldsGer |
PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1964510147 (DE-599)GBVOLC1964510147 (PRQ)g1107-f4e7b719b645bda117b0315a40001182e59d75059dabd29c93b640e6be6e19fb0 (KEY)0031578820150000109000300773appealtocommonsensewhyunappealabledistrictcourtdec DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB 86.00 bkl Matthew D Heins verfasserin aut An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final "judicial" decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are "administrative." Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating litigants who are told they cannot receive direct review of their purportedly administrative case. Yet because the distinction is ill defined, and because alternative avenues of review are in reality unavailable, "administrative" has proven broad and unforgiving. This Note critiques the tenuous distinction between administrative and judicial, examining fee reimbursement decisions under the Criminal Justice Act to pinpoint where the line is, where it should be, and how courts should explain its location. If there is to be a line separating administrative from judicial, it should be sharply drawn with an eye to the connectedness of the litigants and the dispute to the inner workings of the court. If administrative decisions remain unreviewable, judicial consistency and legitimacy demand that "administrative" be a narrow classification. Mandamus Judicial review Laws, regulations and rules Federal courts Appellate procedure State court decisions Supreme Court decisions Federal court decisions Fees & charges Enthalten in Northwestern University law review Chicago, Ill. : School, 1953 109(2015), 3, Seite 773 (DE-627)168199327 (DE-600)702026-0 (DE-576)015942856 0029-3571 nnns volume:109 year:2015 number:3 pages:773 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1722656067 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 86.00 AVZ AR 109 2015 3 773 |
| allfieldsSound |
PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1964510147 (DE-599)GBVOLC1964510147 (PRQ)g1107-f4e7b719b645bda117b0315a40001182e59d75059dabd29c93b640e6be6e19fb0 (KEY)0031578820150000109000300773appealtocommonsensewhyunappealabledistrictcourtdec DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB 86.00 bkl Matthew D Heins verfasserin aut An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final "judicial" decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are "administrative." Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating litigants who are told they cannot receive direct review of their purportedly administrative case. Yet because the distinction is ill defined, and because alternative avenues of review are in reality unavailable, "administrative" has proven broad and unforgiving. This Note critiques the tenuous distinction between administrative and judicial, examining fee reimbursement decisions under the Criminal Justice Act to pinpoint where the line is, where it should be, and how courts should explain its location. If there is to be a line separating administrative from judicial, it should be sharply drawn with an eye to the connectedness of the litigants and the dispute to the inner workings of the court. If administrative decisions remain unreviewable, judicial consistency and legitimacy demand that "administrative" be a narrow classification. Mandamus Judicial review Laws, regulations and rules Federal courts Appellate procedure State court decisions Supreme Court decisions Federal court decisions Fees & charges Enthalten in Northwestern University law review Chicago, Ill. : School, 1953 109(2015), 3, Seite 773 (DE-627)168199327 (DE-600)702026-0 (DE-576)015942856 0029-3571 nnns volume:109 year:2015 number:3 pages:773 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1722656067 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 86.00 AVZ AR 109 2015 3 773 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Northwestern University law review 109(2015), 3, Seite 773 volume:109 year:2015 number:3 pages:773 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Northwestern University law review 109(2015), 3, Seite 773 volume:109 year:2015 number:3 pages:773 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Mandamus Judicial review Laws, regulations and rules Federal courts Appellate procedure State court decisions Supreme Court decisions Federal court decisions Fees & charges |
| dewey-raw |
340 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Northwestern University law review |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Matthew D Heins @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2015-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
168199327 |
| dewey-sort |
3340 |
| id |
OLC1964510147 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1964510147</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220215160906.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160206s2015 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20160617</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1964510147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1964510147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)g1107-f4e7b719b645bda117b0315a40001182e59d75059dabd29c93b640e6be6e19fb0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0031578820150000109000300773appealtocommonsensewhyunappealabledistrictcourtdec</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="q">DNB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">86.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Matthew D Heins</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final "judicial" decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are "administrative." Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating litigants who are told they cannot receive direct review of their purportedly administrative case. Yet because the distinction is ill defined, and because alternative avenues of review are in reality unavailable, "administrative" has proven broad and unforgiving. This Note critiques the tenuous distinction between administrative and judicial, examining fee reimbursement decisions under the Criminal Justice Act to pinpoint where the line is, where it should be, and how courts should explain its location. If there is to be a line separating administrative from judicial, it should be sharply drawn with an eye to the connectedness of the litigants and the dispute to the inner workings of the court. If administrative decisions remain unreviewable, judicial consistency and legitimacy demand that "administrative" be a narrow classification.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mandamus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Judicial review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Laws, regulations and rules</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Federal courts</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Appellate procedure</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">State court decisions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Supreme Court decisions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Federal court decisions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Fees & charges</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Northwestern University law review</subfield><subfield code="d">Chicago, Ill. : School, 1953</subfield><subfield code="g">109(2015), 3, Seite 773</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)168199327</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)702026-0</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)015942856</subfield><subfield code="x">0029-3571</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:109</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:773</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://search.proquest.com/docview/1722656067</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-JUR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2041</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2062</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">86.00</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">109</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">773</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Matthew D Heins |
| spellingShingle |
Matthew D Heins ddc 340 bkl 86.00 misc Mandamus misc Judicial review misc Laws, regulations and rules misc Federal courts misc Appellate procedure misc State court decisions misc Supreme Court decisions misc Federal court decisions misc Fees & charges An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review |
| authorStr |
Matthew D Heins |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)168199327 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
340 - Law |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0029-3571 |
| topic_title |
340 DNB 86.00 bkl An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review Mandamus Judicial review Laws, regulations and rules Federal courts Appellate procedure State court decisions Supreme Court decisions Federal court decisions Fees & charges |
| topic |
ddc 340 bkl 86.00 misc Mandamus misc Judicial review misc Laws, regulations and rules misc Federal courts misc Appellate procedure misc State court decisions misc Supreme Court decisions misc Federal court decisions misc Fees & charges |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 340 bkl 86.00 misc Mandamus misc Judicial review misc Laws, regulations and rules misc Federal courts misc Appellate procedure misc State court decisions misc Supreme Court decisions misc Federal court decisions misc Fees & charges |
| topic_browse |
ddc 340 bkl 86.00 misc Mandamus misc Judicial review misc Laws, regulations and rules misc Federal courts misc Appellate procedure misc State court decisions misc Supreme Court decisions misc Federal court decisions misc Fees & charges |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Northwestern University law review |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
168199327 |
| dewey-tens |
340 - Law |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Northwestern University law review |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)168199327 (DE-600)702026-0 (DE-576)015942856 |
| title |
An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC1964510147 (DE-599)GBVOLC1964510147 (PRQ)g1107-f4e7b719b645bda117b0315a40001182e59d75059dabd29c93b640e6be6e19fb0 (KEY)0031578820150000109000300773appealtocommonsensewhyunappealabledistrictcourtdec |
| title_full |
An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review |
| author_sort |
Matthew D Heins |
| journal |
Northwestern University law review |
| journalStr |
Northwestern University law review |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
300 - Social sciences |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2015 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
773 |
| author_browse |
Matthew D Heins |
| container_volume |
109 |
| class |
340 DNB 86.00 bkl |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Matthew D Heins |
| dewey-full |
340 |
| title_sort |
appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review |
| title_auth |
An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review |
| abstract |
U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final "judicial" decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are "administrative." Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating litigants who are told they cannot receive direct review of their purportedly administrative case. Yet because the distinction is ill defined, and because alternative avenues of review are in reality unavailable, "administrative" has proven broad and unforgiving. This Note critiques the tenuous distinction between administrative and judicial, examining fee reimbursement decisions under the Criminal Justice Act to pinpoint where the line is, where it should be, and how courts should explain its location. If there is to be a line separating administrative from judicial, it should be sharply drawn with an eye to the connectedness of the litigants and the dispute to the inner workings of the court. If administrative decisions remain unreviewable, judicial consistency and legitimacy demand that "administrative" be a narrow classification. |
| abstractGer |
U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final "judicial" decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are "administrative." Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating litigants who are told they cannot receive direct review of their purportedly administrative case. Yet because the distinction is ill defined, and because alternative avenues of review are in reality unavailable, "administrative" has proven broad and unforgiving. This Note critiques the tenuous distinction between administrative and judicial, examining fee reimbursement decisions under the Criminal Justice Act to pinpoint where the line is, where it should be, and how courts should explain its location. If there is to be a line separating administrative from judicial, it should be sharply drawn with an eye to the connectedness of the litigants and the dispute to the inner workings of the court. If administrative decisions remain unreviewable, judicial consistency and legitimacy demand that "administrative" be a narrow classification. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final "judicial" decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are "administrative." Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating litigants who are told they cannot receive direct review of their purportedly administrative case. Yet because the distinction is ill defined, and because alternative avenues of review are in reality unavailable, "administrative" has proven broad and unforgiving. This Note critiques the tenuous distinction between administrative and judicial, examining fee reimbursement decisions under the Criminal Justice Act to pinpoint where the line is, where it should be, and how courts should explain its location. If there is to be a line separating administrative from judicial, it should be sharply drawn with an eye to the connectedness of the litigants and the dispute to the inner workings of the court. If administrative decisions remain unreviewable, judicial consistency and legitimacy demand that "administrative" be a narrow classification. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 |
| container_issue |
3 |
| title_short |
An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review |
| url |
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1722656067 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| ppnlink |
168199327 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T14:14:38.459Z |
| _version_ |
1803567579488321536 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1964510147</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220215160906.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160206s2015 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20160617</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1964510147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1964510147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)g1107-f4e7b719b645bda117b0315a40001182e59d75059dabd29c93b640e6be6e19fb0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0031578820150000109000300773appealtocommonsensewhyunappealabledistrictcourtdec</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="q">DNB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">86.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Matthew D Heins</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">An appeal to common sense: why "unappealable" district court decisions should be subject to appellate review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final "judicial" decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are "administrative." Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating litigants who are told they cannot receive direct review of their purportedly administrative case. Yet because the distinction is ill defined, and because alternative avenues of review are in reality unavailable, "administrative" has proven broad and unforgiving. This Note critiques the tenuous distinction between administrative and judicial, examining fee reimbursement decisions under the Criminal Justice Act to pinpoint where the line is, where it should be, and how courts should explain its location. If there is to be a line separating administrative from judicial, it should be sharply drawn with an eye to the connectedness of the litigants and the dispute to the inner workings of the court. If administrative decisions remain unreviewable, judicial consistency and legitimacy demand that "administrative" be a narrow classification.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mandamus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Judicial review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Laws, regulations and rules</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Federal courts</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Appellate procedure</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">State court decisions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Supreme Court decisions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Federal court decisions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Fees & charges</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Northwestern University law review</subfield><subfield code="d">Chicago, Ill. : School, 1953</subfield><subfield code="g">109(2015), 3, Seite 773</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)168199327</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)702026-0</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)015942856</subfield><subfield code="x">0029-3571</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:109</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:773</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://search.proquest.com/docview/1722656067</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-JUR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2041</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2062</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">86.00</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">109</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">773</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400199 |