ADJUDICATION

ADJUDICATION

The legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding; also the judgment or decision given. The entry of a decree by a court in respect to the parties in a case. It implies a hearing by a court, after notice, of legal evidence on the factual issue(s) involved. The equivalent of a determination. It indicates that the claims of all the parties thereto have been considered and set at rest.

Three types of disputes are resolved through adjudication: disputes between private parties, such as individuals or corporations; disputes between private parties and public officials; and disputes between public officials or public bodies. The requirements of full adjudication include notice to all interested parties (all parties with a legal interest in, or legal right affected by, the dispute) and an opportunity for all parties to present evidence and arguments. The adjudicative process is governed by formal RULES OF EVIDENCE and procedure. Its objective is to reach a reasonable settlement of the controversy at hand. A decision is rendered by an impartial, passive fact finder, usually a judge, jury, or administrative tribunal.

The adjudication of a controversy involves
the performance of several tasks. The trier must
establish the facts in controversy, and define and
interpret the applicable law, or, if no relevant law
exists, fashion a new law to apply to the situation.
Complex evidentiary rules limit the presentation
of proofs, and the Anglo-American
tradition of STARE DECISIS, or following precedents,
controls the outcome. However, the
process of applying established RULES OF LAW is
neither simple nor automatic. Judges have considerable
latitude in interpreting the statutes or
case law upon which they base their decisions.

An age-old question that still plagues legal
theorists is whether judges “make” law when
they adjudicate. SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE
believed that judges do nothing more than
maintain and expound established law (Commentaries
on the Laws of England); other writers
vehemently disagree. Some legal analysts maintain
that the law is whatever judges declare it to
be. Echoing those sentiments, President
THEODORE ROOSEVELT asserted that “the chief
lawmakers in our country may be, and often are,
the judges, because they are the final seat of
authority. Every time they interpret . . . they necessarily
enact into law parts of a system of social
philosophy; and as such interpretation is fundamental,
they give direction to all law-making”
(Message to Congress [Dec. 8, 1908]). Supreme
Court Justice BENJAMIN N. CARDOZO, writing in
The Nature of the Judicial Process, argued that
the law is evolutionary and that judges, by interpreting
and applying it to specific sets of facts,
actually fashion new laws.

Whether judges are seen as making law or
merely following what came before, they are
required to operate within narrow strictures.
Even when they are deciding a CASE OF FIRST
IMPRESSION (a question that has not previously
been adjudicated), they generally try to analogize
to some existing precedent. Judges often
consider customs of the community; political
and social implications; customs of the trade,
market, or profession; and history when applying
the law. Some, such as Justice OLIVER WENDELL
HOLMES and Justice Cardozo, thought that
considerations of social and public policy are
the most powerful forces behind judicial decisions.

A hearing in which the parties are given an
opportunity to present their evidence and arguments
is essential to an adjudication. Anglo-
American law presumes that the parties to the
dispute are in the best position to know the facts
of their particular situations and develop their
own proofs. If the hearing is before a court, formal
rules of procedure and evidence govern; a
hearing before an ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY is
generally less structured.

Following the hearing, the decision maker is
expected to deliver a reasoned opinion. This
opinion is the basis for review if the decision is
appealed to a higher tribunal (a court of appeals). It also helps ensure that decisions are
not reached arbitrarily. Finally, a well-reasoned
opinion forces the judge to carefully think
through his or her decision in order to be able to
explain the process followed in reaching it.

Adjudication of a controversy generally
ensures a fair and equitable outcome. Because
courts are governed by evidentiary and procedural
rules, as well as by stare decisis, the adjudicative
process assures litigants of some degree
of efficiency, uniformity, and predictability of
result.

FURTHER READINGS
Cardoza, Benjamin N. 1960. The Nature of the Judicial
Process. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press.
Lewis, William D., ed. 1922. Commentaries on the Laws of
England. Philadelphia: Bisel.
Lucy, William. 1999. Understanding and Explaining Adjudication.
Oxford Univ. Press.
Roosevelt, Theodore. 1908. Message to Congress. Congressional
Record, December 8, pt. I:21.
CROSS-REFERENCES
Blackstone, Sir William; Cardozo, Benjamin Nathan;
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr.; Judiciary.