Administrative Law. Judicial Control. District Court May Enjoin Hearing Tainted by Fundamental Procedural Irregularities. Amos Treat & Co. v. SEC (D. C. Cir. 1962)

1963 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 831

Author(s):  
Peter Cane

This chapter explores the idea of a ‘tradition’ of comparative administrative law (CAL) in the trans-Atlantic Anglosphere. It first deals with a period from the early eighteenth to the late nineteenth century. At this time, Western comparative public law was predominantly an Anglo-European affair. The chapter next focuses on a period between about 1880 and 1940, a time of heavy intellectual traffic between England and the US, in which the birth of an identifiably Anglo-American tradition in comparative administrative law may be witnessed. Finally, the chapter is concerned with the impact on the Anglo-American tradition of the US Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA marked the maturation of American administrative law as a legal category concerned above all with judicial control of administrative power.



2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-328
Author(s):  
Peter Cane

This article analyses, from historical and comparative perspectives, three closely related concepts of administrative law – namely records, reasons and rationality. It finds that the concept of the ‘administrative record’ is far more significant in United States administrative law than in either English or Australian administrative law, and suggests why this might be so. The importance of the record in US law explains why it imposes stronger obligations on administrators to give reasons than does either English or Australian law. It also explains why terms such as ‘rationality’ and ‘reasonableness’ have significantly different meanings in US administrative law on the one hand, and English and Australian law on the other.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document