Appellate Court Decision Making in NLRB Cases
نویسنده
چکیده
Abstract: In this article, I review the decisions of the appellate courts in National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) cases over a twenty year period, 1994 to 2014, to ascertain what political, economic and legal factors impact judicial decision making. Unlike many other analyses of appellate decision making, this study makes a deliberate effort to take into account legal and procedural differences between cases. A judge likely decides a statutory interpretation case quite differently than one where the court need only decide whether substantial evidence supports the administrative agency’s ruling. In addition, the impact of influences such as partisanship or whether one’s judicial colleagues on a panel impact vote choice can very much vary depending on the type of case and its legal and procedural posture. Yet, scholars studying judicial decision making, partisanship and panel effects have largely grouped all cases together, reaching monolithic conclusions about influences. By coding for legal and procedural differences, this article attempts to offer a much more nuanced theory concerning the factors that influence judicial decision making for appellate courts charged to review the actions of a notoriously partisan administrative agency. The results contribute to important debates in administrative law about the amount of deference that the appellate courts should give to agency decisions as well as to the wisdom of creating specialized appellate court so as to encourage national uniformity.
منابع مشابه
The Impact of Legal Schools of Thought
This paper provides a quantitative analysis of the e ects of legal schools of thought on appellate jurisprudence and criminal sentencing decisions. We construct measures of the in uence of a major school of conservative legal thought Law and Economics using the linguistic features of judicial opinions and attendance at a law-and-economics training program. We examine the impact of law-and-econo...
متن کاملA Theory of Judicial Deference
In many instances, appellate courts defer to lower courts and administrative agencies; the appellate court allows the other agent’s decision to stand even though the appellate court has strong reason to believe that decision incorrect. We provide a model in which such deference is rational. Our model is set in a two-dimensional case space. One dimension reflects "global" facts that are known to...
متن کاملManaging Caseflow in State Intermediate Appellate Courts: What Mechanisms, Practices, and Procedures Can Work to Reduce Delay?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470 I. Overview of the Project and This Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471 A. Objectives of the Project.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471 B. The Project’s Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474...
متن کاملRefusing artificial nutrition and hydration: does statutory law send the wrong message?
Ethical consensus and appellate court decisions view artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) as medical treatment that can be refused like other treatments. However, advance directive statutes may produce obstacles for refusal of ANH, as distinct from other life-sustaining treatments, in patients who lack capacity. This paper reviews state statutes and appellate case law regarding medical deci...
متن کامل