web.archive.org

Adjudication: Definition and Much More from Answers.com

n.

[L. adjudicatio: cf. F. adjudication.]

1. The act of adjudicating; the act or process of trying and determining judicially.

2. A deliberate determination by the judicial power; a judicial decision or sentence. «An adjudication in favor of natural rights.» Burke.

3. (Bankruptcy practice) The decision upon the question whether the debtor is a bankrupt. Abbott.

4. (Scots Law) A process by which land is attached security or in satisfaction of a debt.

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

The legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding; also the judgment or decision given. The entry of a decree by a court in respect to the parties in a case. It implies a hearing by a court, after notice, of legal evidence on the factual issue(s) involved. The equivalent of a determination. It indicates that the claims of all the parties thereto have been considered and set at rest.

Three types of disputes are resolved through adjudication: disputes between private parties, such as individuals or corporations; disputes between private parties and public officials; and disputes between public officials or public bodies. The requirements of full adjudication include notice to all interested parties (all parties with a legal interest in, or legal right affected by, the dispute) and an opportunity for all parties to present evidence and arguments. The adjudicative process is governed by formal rules of evidence and procedure. Its objective is to reach a reasonable settlement of the controversy at hand. A decision is rendered by an impartial, passive fact finder, usually a judge, jury, or administrative tribunal.

The adjudication of a controversy involves the performance of several tasks. The trier must establish the facts in controversy, and define and interpret the applicable law, or, if no relevant law exists, fashion a new law to apply to the situation. Complex evidentiary rules limit the presentation of proofs, and the Anglo-American tradition of stare decisis, or following precedents, controls the outcome. However, the process of applying established rules of law is neither simple nor automatic. Judges have considerable latitude in interpreting the statutes or case law upon which they base their decisions.

An age-old question that still plagues legal theorists is whether judges "make" law when they adjudicate. Sir William Blackstone believed that judges do nothing more than maintain and expound established law (Commentaries on the Laws of England); other writers vehemently disagree. Some legal analysts maintain that the law is whatever judges declare it to be. Echoing those sentiments, President Theodore Roosevelt asserted that "the chief lawmakers in our country may be, and often are, the judges, because they are the final seat of authority. Every time they interpret … they necessarily enact into law parts of a system of social philosophy; and as such interpretation is fundamental, they give direction to all law-making" (Message to Congress [Dec. 8, 1908]). Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, writing in The Nature of the Judicial Process, argued that the law is evolutionary and that judges, by interpreting and applying it to specific sets of facts, actually fashion new laws.

Whether judges are seen as making law or merely following what came before, they are required to operate within narrow strictures. Even when they are deciding a case of first impression (a question that has not previously been adjudicated), they generally try to analogize to some existing precedent. Judges often consider customs of the community; political and social implications; customs of the trade, market, or profession; and history when applying the law. Some, such as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo, thought that considerations of social and public policy are the most powerful forces behind judicial decisions.

A hearing in which the parties are given an opportunity to present their evidence and arguments is essential to an adjudication. Anglo-American law presumes that the parties to the dispute are in the best position to know the facts of their particular situations and develop their own proofs. If the hearing is before a court, formal rules of procedure and evidence govern; a hearing before an administrative agency is generally less structured.

Following the hearing, the decision maker is expected to deliver a reasoned opinion. This opinion is the basis for review if the decision is appealed to a higher tribunal (a court of appeals). It also helps ensure that decisions are not reached arbitrarily. Finally, a well-reasoned opinion forces the judge to carefully think through his or her decision in order to be able to explain the process followed in reaching it.

Adjudication of a controversy generally ensures a fair and equitable outcome. Because courts are governed by evidentiary and procedural rules, as well as by stare decisis, the adjudicative process assures litigants of some degree of efficiency, uniformity, and predictability of result.

See: Judiciary.


Adjudication is the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved. Three types of disputes are resolved through adjudication:

  1. Disputes between private parties, such as individuals or corporations.
  2. Disputes between private parties and public officials.
  3. Disputes between public officials or public bodies.

Other meanings

Adjudication can also be the process (in television game shows and the like) by which a winner is found.

In Healthcare

Claims adjudication in health insurance refers to the determination of a member's payment, or financial responsibility, after a medical claim is applied to the member's insurance benefits.

Real time claims adjudication (RTCA) is a process that will instantaneously adjudicate a claim before the healthcare member even leaves the office. (Similar to using a debit card.) Humana, Inc. is one of the industry pioneers of RTCA.[1]

Pertaining to Security Clearances

Adjudication is the process directly following a background investigation where the investigation results are reviewed to determine if a candidate should be awarded a security clearance.

From the United States Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility: "Adjudication is the review and consideration of all available information to ensure an individual's loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such, that entrusting an individual with national security information or assigning an individual to sensitive duties is clearly in the best interest of national security."

Referring to a Minor

Referring to a minor, the term adjudicated refers to children that are under a court's jurisdiction usually as a result of having engaged in delinquent behavior and not having a legal guardian that could be entrusted with being responsible for him or her.

Different states have different processes for declaring a child as adjudicated.

"Dually adjudicated child" means a child who is found to be dependent or temporarily subject to court jurisdiction pending an adjudication of a dependency petition and who is alleged or found to have committed a delinquent or incorrigible act.
"Adjudicated" means that the Juvenile Court has entered an order declaring that a child is neglected, abused, dependent, a minor requiring authoritative intervention, a delinquent minor or an addicted minor.

In Australia

In Victoria

Adjudication is a relatively new process introduced by the Government of Victoria in Australia, to allow for the rapid determination of progress claims under building contracts or sub-contracts and contracts for the supply of goods or services in the building industry. This process was designed to ensure cash flow to businesses in the building industry, without parties get tied up in lengthy and expensive litigation or arbitration. It is regulated by the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002.

The Victorian Building Commission has authorised Building Adjudication Victoriato nominate adjudictors.

The Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 is currently being reviewed by the State Government for reforms which may widen the scope of the Act within the building industry in Victoria.[3]

In Queensland

The Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004, or BCIPA as it is commonly known, came into effect in Queensland on the 1st of October, 2004. Through a statuatory-based process known as adjudication a claimant can seek to resolve payment on account disputes. The act covers construction, and related supply of goods and services, contracts, whether written or verbal.

BCIPA is regulated by the Building and Construction Industry Payments Agency, a branch of the Queensland Building Services Authority.

The Building and Construction Industry Payments Agency has authorised RICS Dispute Resolution Service to nominate adjudictors in Queensland.

A list of all Authorised Nominating Authorities can be found on the BCIPA website [[[www.bcipa.qld.gov.au]]]. There are seven Authorised Nominating Authorities registered in Queensland.

Further reading

  • Alexander Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, 2nd ed. (Yale University Press, 1986).
  • Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Publishers, 2006).
  • Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Harvard University Press, 2005, originally 1977).
  • Conor Gearty, Principles of Human Rights Adjudication (Oxford University Press, 2005).
  • Michael J. Gorr and Sterling Harwood, eds., Controversies in Criminal Law: Philosophical Essays on Responsibility and Procedure (Westview Press, 1992).
  • Michael J. Gorr and Sterling Harwood, eds., Crime and Punishment: Philosophic Explorations (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2000; originally Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1996).
  • H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford University Press, 1961).
  • Sterling Harwood, Judicial Activism: A Restrained Defense (Austin & Winfield Publishers, 1993).
  • Allan C. Hutchinson, It's All in the Game: A Nonfoundationalist Account of Law and Adjudication (Duke University Press, 2000).
  • David Lyons, Ethics and the Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press, 1984).
  • David Lyons, Moral Aspects of Legal Theory (Cambridge University Press, 1993).
  • John T. Noonan and Kenneth I. Winston, eds., The Responsible Judge: Readings in Judicial Ethics (Praeger Publishers, 1993).
  • Kathleen M. Sullivan and Gerald Gunther, Constitutional Law, 15th ed. (Foundation Press, 2004).
  • Harry H. Wellington, Interpreting the Constitution: The Supreme Court and the Process of Adjudication (Yale University Press, 1992).

See also

References

  1. ^ Real time claims, Humana.

External links

Law
Legal subjects Constitutional and Administrative law · Criminal law · Contract · Tort · Property · Trusts and Equity · Public international law · Conflict of laws · Supranational law Scale_of_justice_2.svg
Further disciplines Labour law · Human rights · Procedure · Evidence · Immigration law · Family law · Wills · Commercial law · Corporate law · Intellectual property · Unjust enrichment · Restitution · Tax law · Banking law · Competition law · Consumer protection  · Environmental law · International criminal law · Admiralty law · Military law  · Product liability
Legal systems Common law · Civil law · Religious law · Socialist law · Comparative law
Legal theory History of law · Philosophy of law · Economic analysis of law · Sociology of law
Legal institutions Judiciary · Legislature · Executive · Military and Police · Bureaucracy · Legal profession · Civil society
Category · Portal

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)