Judicial review of agency interpretation of statutes: Deference doctrines in comparative perspective

Policy Studies Journal

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 421-440

  Tolley, Michael C ^a  

^a NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; LEGAL SYSTEM; RACE;

EID: 0142218411     PISSN: 0190292X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1541-0072.00032     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Asimow, M. Administrative law under South Africa's interim constitution, American Journal of Comparative Law., 44, 393-420.
2. Clayton, C., & Gillman, H. (Eds.) (1999). Supreme Court decision-making: New institutionalist approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Corder, H. (1984). Justice at work. Cape Town: Juta.
4. Currie, L., & Klaaren, J. (2001). The promotion of administrative justice act benchbook. Cape Town: Siber Ink.
5. Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (1998). The choices justices make.
6. Evans, J. M. (1989). Administrative Law (3d ed.).
7. Madgwich, P., & Woodhouse, D. (1995). The law and politics of the constitution of the United Kingdom.
8. Malleson, K. (1999). The new judiciary: The effects of expansion and activism.
9. Merrill, T. W., & Hickman, K. E. (2001). Chevron's domain. George Town Law Journal, 89, 833-921.
10. Segal, J., & Spaeth, H. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model.
11. Shapiro, M. (2001). Administrative law unbounded: Reflections on government and governance. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 8, 369-400.
12. Sunstein, C. (2001). Designing democracy: What constitution do. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Taggart, M. (Ed.). (1997). The province of administrative law.
14. Williams, Q. C., D. G. T., Sir. (1994). Law and administrative discretion. Global Legal Studies Journal. 2, 191-212.
15. Woodward, D. R., & Levin, R. M. (1979). In defense of deference: Judicial review of agency action. Administrative Law Review, 31, 329-344,