17:35
@LawIsForPeasants: while charlie kirk's facts do not care about your feelings, just know that I do!
Warning
Info
Warning
Info
LSDefine
Simple English definitions for legal terms
ALJ
Read a random definition: nul tiel
A quick definition of ALJ:
An ALJ, or Administrative Law Judge, is a person who listens to arguments and evidence presented by different parties in a legal case. They are like a judge and a jury combined. They have the power to ask questions, take evidence, and make decisions based on the facts presented. Their decisions can be reviewed by higher authorities. ALJs are appointed to investigate and report facts to an administrative or quasi-judicial agency or tribunal. They are also known as hearing examiners, hearing officers, or trial examiners.
A more thorough explanation:
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is a person who acts as a judge in an administrative hearing. They are independent and neutral, and they have the power to make decisions based on the evidence presented to them. ALJs are appointed to investigate and report facts, sometimes with recommendations to an administrative or quasi-judicial agency or tribunal.
During a hearing, the ALJ has the power to:
- Administer oaths
- Receive evidence
- Take testimony
- Make initial findings of fact or law
The ALJ's findings are subject to review and modification by agency heads. This means that the agency head can change the decision made by the ALJ if they believe it is necessary.
The status of the ALJ is defined by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires that ALJs preside over hearings during formal adjudication proceedings. ALJs can also preside over hearings during informal adjudication.
Examples of situations where an ALJ might be used include:
- A dispute between an employee and their employer over workers' compensation
- A hearing to determine whether a person is eligible for disability benefits
- A hearing to determine whether a company has violated environmental regulations
In each of these examples, the ALJ would listen to the evidence presented by both sides and make a decision based on that evidence. Their decision would be subject to review by the agency head, who could modify it if necessary.