ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - DOCTRINE OF THE BEN AVON CASE- INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION BY COURT OF BOTH LAW AND FACTS WHERE CONFISCATION QUESTION INVOLVED

Authors

Alfred I. Rothman, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

A recent decision by the United States Supreme Court renders desirable a reexamination of the scope of judicial review of orders and decisions made by administrative bodies, and more specifically a reexamination of the doctrine of the Ben Avon case. There are several possibilities as to the finality that may be accorded to administrative fact determinations: first, findings may be conclusive and binding upon the reviewing court; second, they may be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence; third, they may be subject to independent determination by the court. To what extent, if any, the scope of review should take the last-mentioned form has been, and still is, one of the most troublesome and debatable aspects of administrative law. As government regulation increases, the need for more commissions, boards, and agencies increases, with a corresponding need for greater efficiency on the part of all administrative bodies-hence the demand by administrative bodies, backed by many students of administrative law, for more freedom of action and less interference by the judiciary. On the other hand, increasing regulation affects more interests and more people, and this group naturally seeks to assure the correctness of administrative action by subjecting it to greater judicial control.

Recommended Citation

Alfred I. Rothman, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - DOCTRINE OF THE BEN AVON CASE- INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION BY COURT OF BOTH LAW AND FACTS WHERE CONFISCATION QUESTION INVOLVED, 39 Mich. L. Rev. 438 (1941).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol39/iss3/6