San Antonio Alcohol Safety Action Project - analytic study no. 4: analysis of adjudication - 1975-1976. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Evaluation of the impact of the drug evaluation and classification program on enforcement and adjudication. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Special Adjudication for Enforcement (SAFE) - volume I.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Catalogue des livres precieux manuscrits et imprimés faisant partie de la bibliothèque de m. Ambroise Firmin-Didot : table alphabétique des noms d'auteurs & des ouvrages anonymes, suivie de la liste des prix d'adjudication.

Compiled by G. Pawlowsky, Didot's librarian. A catalog drqwn up by Didot himself was issued in 1867 (only v.1 was ever published)

Juveniles in Los Angeles County from arrest to adjudication : report on juvenille justice system, arrests and dispositions /

Mode of access: Internet.

Adjudication of claims against Vietnam [microform] : hearing and markup before the Subcommittees on Asian and Pacific Affairs and on International Economic Policy and Trade of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-sixth Congress, first session, on H.R. 2200, July 27 and October 25, 1979.

Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc.

Protecting persons with disabilities through changes in the Department of Rehabilitation Services' Bureau of Disability Adjudication Services : a report submitted to the members of the 83rd General Assembly /

"November 1, 1984."

The impact of the juvenile intervention facility on the adjudication of delinquent youth in Broward County

Considerable funds have been allocated in the area of juvenile justice in attempts to reduce and prevent the problem of juvenile delinquency. Much of these funds have been funneled to various community-level intervention programs. This dissertation reports the results of a study that examined the effects of one such program, the Juvenile Intervention Facility (JIF) in Broward County, Florida, on reducing the number of cases handled judicially by the Juvenile Court in that county. ^ Juvenile justice policy, which precipitated the creation of the JIF program, assumed that more structured and integrative efforts at the point of entry into the juvenile justice system would lead to greater diversion from the courts to much needed intervention services. By virtue of this process, the number of juveniles handled judicially by the courts was expected to decrease and future delinquent behavior would be prevented. Archival data from four fiscal years were examined, two years pre-JIF, two years post-JIF, a third-year follow-up, and a concurrent outcome measure corresponding to the first year of JIF operations. Data included all juvenile cases referred during the fiscal years defined for Broward and St. Lucie Counties, the state of Florida, and the United States. The study tested four hypotheses: (a) the JIF would reduce the number of cases handled judicially in Broward County Juvenile Court, (b) the decrease in judicially handled cases would be greater for females than for males, (c) there would be greater decreases in judicially handled cases for whites than non-whites, (d) there would be greater decreases in judicial handling for younger than older offenders. Bivariate analyses were conducted, consisting of chi square tests, to test the hypotheses. ^ Results indicate that the impact of the JIF was in the opposite direction of what was expected in that more juvenile offenders were handled judicially through juvenile court. This fact points to the possibility that the JIF has failed to provide the intended consequences of the policy. In the discussion, these “unintended” consequences are addressed in the context of juvenile justice policy creation and the competing constituencies involved in such policy development. ^

Investigating the factors influencing the quality of adjudication of complex payment disputes in Australia

Statutory adjudication has been enacted throughout Australia on a state-by-state basis. The original enacting legislation may be broadly divided into two models which have become known as the East Coast and West Coast models. The East Coast model adjudication scheme – which is operational in NSW, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, ACT and South Australia – has in recent times come under much criticism for failing to facilitate determinations of sufficient quality with respect to large and/or complex payment claims. By carrying out a thorough desktop study approach whereby evidence is garnered from three primary sources – government commissioned consultation papers, academic publications and judicial decisions – this paper reviews this criticism and therefrom distils the key factors influencing the quality of adjudication of large and/or complex claims in Australia.

A proposed roadmap to optimise the adjudication of complex payment disputes in Australia

In Australia, statutory construction adjudication has recently received a lot of criticism due to the increasing amount of determinations that have been quashed upon judicial review, and anecdotal evidence from some quarters showing dissatisfaction with the quality of adjudication decisions. Such criticism is particularly aimed at adjudications of large and technically and legally complex payment disputes, where adjudicators are under pressure to consider substantial volumes of submissions in very tight timeframes. More specifically, criticisms have been directed at, inter alia, adjudicator’s regulations, procedural fairness, jurisdictional powers and finality of decisions. This paper reviews the measures to improve the quality of adjudications of complex payment disputes then proposes a roadmap by selecting the Qld model as a benchmark but suggesting further improvements identified and explained via specific steps or pit stops. The pit stops include criteria for timeframes of complex claims, appointment, regulation and powers of adjudicators and a review system on the merits to control the quality of adjudication decisions replicating the Singapore model. The findings remain as blunt instruments and deemed as hypotheses to inform subsequent empirical research which the authors are currently undertaking to further investigate, strengthen and validate the findings of this study in order to propose a reliable and useful guide to any parliament seeking to optimise its statutory adjudication to effectively deal with complex payment disputes.

Examining the approaches to diminish judicial intervention in statutory adjudication in Australia

In Australia, statutory construction adjudication is a fast payment dispute resolution process designed to keep the cash flowing down the hierarchical contractual chain in construction projects. Its rapid, highly regulatory and temporarily binding nature have led to it being often described as a ‘quick and dirty’ process that delivers ‘rough and ready’ justice. Adjudicators often have to grapple with complex legal issues related to jurisdictional facts and interpretation of contract provisions, though the majority of them are not legally trained. This has often led to a poor quality of adjudication outcome for large and complex payment claims which has, in turn, led to a mounting dissatisfaction due to the many judicial challenges to adjudicators’ determinations seen in recent years. The evolving tension between the object of the security of payment legislation and excessive involvement of the courts has often been the subject of comment by the judiciary. This paper aims to examine the legislative and judicial approaches to support the object of the security of payment legislation to ease cash flow. The paper adopts a desktop study approach whereby evidence is gathered from three primary sources – judicial decisions, academic publications and governmental reports. The paper concludes that there is a need to adopt other measures which can provide more convenient relief to aggrieved parties to an adjudication process, such that the adjudication process is kept away from the courts as far as is possible. Specifically, it is proposed that a well-designed expanded legislative review scheme of allegedly flawed adjudication, based on that provided in the Western Australian legislation, might stand as a promising remedy to eliminate the evolving tension.

Taking statutory adjudication to the next level: a proposal for review mechanism of erroneous determinations

Statutory adjudication was introduced in the security of payment legislation to quickly and fairly resolve payment disputes in the construction industry. One of the interesting features in some legislation is the availability of an express limited right of aggrieved parties to apply for review against erroneous adjudication decisions. In Singapore, the legislation has no equivalent elsewhere in that it provides for a full review mechanism of erroneous determinations considering the fact that adjudicators often have to grapple with complex issues as sheer volume of documents within a very tight timeframe. This paper discusses the various review mechanisms of erroneous adjudication determinations then asks the question as to whether an appropriately devised legislative review mechanism on the merits, should be an essential characteristic of any effective statutory adjudication scheme. The paper concludes by making the case that an appropriately designed review mechanism as proposed in the paper could be the most pragmatic and effective measure to improve the quality of adjudication outcome and increase the disputants' confidence in statutory adjudication. This paper is based upon a paper by the author which received a High Commendation in the Student Division of the Society of Construction Law Australia Brooking Prize for 2016.

Towards diminishing judicial intervention in statutory adjudication: a pragmatic proposal

Statutory adjudication was introduced into the Security of Payment (SOP) legislation as a fast-track payment dispute resolution process aiming to achieve the object of the legislation to facilitate cash flow within the construction contractual chain. As such, adjudication determinations were usually released and enforced on a "pay now, argue later" 1 basis in order to protect a vulnerable class of smaller businesses within the building and construction industry. The SOP legislation was extremely successful in attaining the stated object in the context of small adjudicated payment claims where both parties used to comply with the adjudication determination.

More and more lawyers but still no judges

This paper discusses some parallels and contrasts between the legal roads to war and suggest that the case is stronger than ever for adjudication of the matter before an independent tribunal where the competing views can be tested.