Appellate review in executive departments and agencies

Administrative Law Review

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 251-

  Weaver, Russell L ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347878270     PISSN: 00018368     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. Agencies have performed adjudicative functions since the eighteenth century. 3 KENNETH C. DAVIS, Administrative Law TREATISE § 17.11, at 313 (2d ed. 1980). The first administrative hearing officers of the federal government may have been the officers who in 1789 determined what soldiers were "disabled during the late war," or may have been the customs officers who in 1789 were authorized to "estimate the duties payable" on imports. Then came inspectors of hulls and boilers of vessels, who started deciding cases in 1838, and registers of the General Land Office, who began in 1840. Id. By 1936, there were "seventy-three administrative tribunals in the federal government performing judicial functions in about 267 classes of cases." Louis G. Caldwell, A Federal Administrative Court, 84 U. PA. L. REV. 966, 970 (1936).
2. Agencies have performed adjudicative functions since the eighteenth century. 3 KENNETH C. DAVIS, Administrative Law TREATISE § 17.11, at 313 (2d ed. 1980). The first administrative hearing officers of the federal government may have been the officers who in 1789 determined what soldiers were "disabled during the late war," or may have been the customs officers who in 1789 were authorized to "estimate the duties payable" on imports. Then came inspectors of hulls and boilers of vessels, who started deciding cases in 1838, and registers of the General Land Office, who began in 1840. Id. By 1936, there were "seventy-three administrative tribunals in the federal government performing judicial functions in about 267 classes of cases." Louis G. Caldwell, A Federal Administrative Court, 84 U. PA. L. REV. 966, 970 (1936).
3. Agencies have performed adjudicative functions since the eighteenth century. 3 KENNETH C. DAVIS, Administrative Law TREATISE § 17.11, at 313 (2d ed. 1980). The first administrative hearing officers of the federal government may have been the officers who in 1789 determined what soldiers were "disabled during the late war," or may have been the customs officers who in 1789 were authorized to "estimate the duties payable" on imports. Then came inspectors of hulls and boilers of vessels, who started deciding cases in 1838, and registers of the General Land Office, who began in 1840. Id. By 1936, there were "seventy-three administrative tribunals in the federal government performing judicial functions in about 267 classes of cases." Louis G. Caldwell, A Federal Administrative Court, 84 U. PA. L. REV. 966, 970 (1936).
4. The first officers to have the title of "examiners "were probably appointed in the ICC pursuant to the Act of 1906, which authorized employment of "special agents or examiners who shall have power to administer oaths, examine witnesses, and receive evidence." Act of June 29, 1906, ch. 3591, 34 Stat. 595 (1906). For nearly twenty years, the Commissioners had somehow managed to hear cases themselves, but the volume of business grew too heavy. Eight "special examiners" were listed among the ICC employees in the 1907 annual report. When Congress in 1914 created the Federal Trade Commission, it provided that the Commission "shall have authority to employ and fix the compensation of such attorneys, special experts, examiners, clerks, and other employees as it may from time to time find necessary for the proper performance of its duties. . . ." Act of Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, 38 Stat. 718 (1914). The Shipping Act was the first to copy this provision, which soon became the prototype for the many regulatory agencies. Act of Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 451, 39 Stat. 729 (1916).
5. See Malcolm Rich, Adapting the Central Panel System: A Study of Seven States, 65 JUDICATURE 246 (1981) (The agencies controlled the compensation and job tenure of their hearing officers and could ignore their decisions and enter de novo rulings instead.).
6. Id.