评审标准范围的结果分析

Paul R. Verkuil
{"title":"评审标准范围的结果分析","authors":"Paul R. Verkuil","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.373561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article raises a question that is rarely asked: Do outcomes (reversal/affirmance/remand rates) on appeal from administrative decisions bear a predictable relationship to the relevant scope of review standard? It turns out that the answer is both yes and no and that in two very active review systems (district court review over Social Security disability and FOIA decisions) the results run counter to what one might surmise based on the relative intensity of the review standards. While conclusions are carefully and necessarily hedged, the subject yields hypotheses worthy of further analysis.","PeriodicalId":75324,"journal":{"name":"William and Mary law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Outcomes Analysis of Scope of Review Standards\",\"authors\":\"Paul R. Verkuil\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.373561\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article raises a question that is rarely asked: Do outcomes (reversal/affirmance/remand rates) on appeal from administrative decisions bear a predictable relationship to the relevant scope of review standard? It turns out that the answer is both yes and no and that in two very active review systems (district court review over Social Security disability and FOIA decisions) the results run counter to what one might surmise based on the relative intensity of the review standards. While conclusions are carefully and necessarily hedged, the subject yields hypotheses worthy of further analysis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":75324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"William and Mary law review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"William and Mary law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.373561\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"William and Mary law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.373561","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

这篇文章提出了一个很少被问到的问题:行政决定上诉的结果(撤销/确认/发回率)是否与相关的审查标准范围具有可预测的关系?事实证明,答案是肯定的和否定的,而且在两个非常活跃的审查系统(地方法院对社会保障残疾的审查和《信息自由法》的决定)中,结果与人们根据审查标准的相对强度所推测的结果背道而驰。虽然结论是谨慎而必要的,但这个主题产生了值得进一步分析的假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Outcomes Analysis of Scope of Review Standards
This article raises a question that is rarely asked: Do outcomes (reversal/affirmance/remand rates) on appeal from administrative decisions bear a predictable relationship to the relevant scope of review standard? It turns out that the answer is both yes and no and that in two very active review systems (district court review over Social Security disability and FOIA decisions) the results run counter to what one might surmise based on the relative intensity of the review standards. While conclusions are carefully and necessarily hedged, the subject yields hypotheses worthy of further analysis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信