Discover published sets by community

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies when a court defers its jurisdiction to an administrative agency because the issues in question require the expertise or uniformity provided by the agency. The court stays the proceedings or dismisses the case without prejudice, pending agency resolution.

De novo review is applied when a court hears an issue without reference to the legal conclusions or assumptions made by previous courts that heard the case. This standard is non-deferential, allowing the reviewing court to substitute its own judgment on both the facts and the law.

Chevron deference is a principle that compels federal courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutes that it administers, as long as the interpretation is reasonable. This doctrine is applied in two steps: first determining if the statute is ambiguous, and if so, whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable.

The rational basis test is the default standard of review for constitutional challenges to non-fundamental rights. It requires that the government action is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This is a highly deferential standard, and government actions are typically upheld if any rational basis can be posited.

The standard of proof determines the degree to which the party bearing the burden of proof must convince the fact-finder of the facts in question. Common standards of proof include preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt, with varying thresholds of persuasion.

The political question doctrine holds that certain questions, particularly those involving a high degree of political discretion or policy choices, are not suitable for judicial resolution and should be handled by the legislative or executive branch. The doctrine ensures that courts respect the separation of powers.

Ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for adjudication. It prevents courts from getting involved in theoretical or premature issues. A case is ripe if the issues are concrete and imminent, and there would be a significant hardship to parties without court intervention.

Auer deference dictates that courts defer to agencies' interpretations of their own regulations unless such interpretations are plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. This standard places a great deal of power in the hands of the agencies to interpret their own rules.

When reviewing fact-finding by administrative agencies, the substantial evidence test is used to determine whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. This is a less deferential standard than the arbitrary and capricious test, but still requires the court to uphold the agency's findings if they are reasonably supported.

Mootness is a justiciability doctrine which disqualifies a case from being heard by a court because the issues have become non-existent or dead due to subsequent events. It ensures that courts are only deciding active controversies where their decision can have a practical effect.

Procedural due process requires that the government follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. The level of due process afforded can vary depending on the severity of the deprivation and may include notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker.

This standard applies when a court reviews an administrative agency's decision-making process. The court assesses whether the agency's decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. If the decision was irrational or lacked a reasonable basis, it may be deemed arbitrary and capricious.

Before a court will review an administrative agency's decision, the plaintiff must exhaust all available administrative remedies. This principle encourages the resolution of disputes within the administrative process and respects the autonomy of agencies to correct their own errors.

Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review and applies to government actions that impinge on fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications. The government must show that the challenged action serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest with the least restrictive means.