Hubbry Logo
Hearing (law)Hearing (law)Main
Open search
Hearing (law)
Community hub
Hearing (law)
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Hearing (law)
Hearing (law)
Hearing (law)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
United States' National Transportation Safety Board hearing in 2017, covering the causes to a deHavilland Otter crash in 2015.

In law, a hearing is the formal examination of a case (civil or criminal) before a judge.[1] It is a proceeding before a court or other decision-making body or officer, such as a government agency or a legislative committee.

Description

[edit]

A hearing is generally distinguished from a trial in that it is usually shorter and often less formal.[2][3]

During the course of litigation, oral arguments are presented in support of motions at hearings. The purpose of these arguments may be to resolve the case without further trial, such as through a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, or to decide discrete issues of law, such as the admissibility of evidence, which will determine how the trial proceeds. Limited evidence and testimony may also be presented at hearings to supplement the legal arguments.[2]

Types

[edit]

Terminology varies from country to country, and there are different types of hearings under different legal systems.

A preliminary hearing (also known as evidentiary hearing, probable cause hearing, and other variant terms) is a proceeding, after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial.[citation needed]

Australia

[edit]

A hearing is a part of the court process in Australia. There are different types of hearing in a case. There may be several hearings, although not all may be scheduled. These include:[4]

  • court mentions, where a case first is heard in court;[5][6] and/or
  • directions hearing(s) (a brief hearing in front of a judge or commissioner);[7] and
  • a contest mention, where disputed issues are resolved, this is the part of the hearing where evidence may be adduced (the process of putting forward or presenting evidence or arguments for consideration by the court[8]); a "type of pre-trial hearing which aims to facilitate early guilty pleas and narrow the issues in dispute".[9]

United Kingdom

[edit]

A hearing is a part of the court process in England and Wales. The term "rolled-up hearing" is also used, referring to occasions when permission is considered for a procedural application on the basis that, if permission is granted, the substantive application will be heard immediately afterwards.[10]

United States

[edit]
Picture from the Berry confirmation hearing by the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Rm. 342.

There are several different types of hearings in the US legal system, each serving a unique purpose. These include:

  • Congressional hearing
  • Unofficial hearing
  • Preliminary hearings are used to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to require a trial. In a preliminary hearing, a judge listens to arguments and evidence from both sides before deciding whether the case should proceed to trial.
  • Motion hearings are held when a party asks the court to take a specific action in the case. For example, a party may request that certain evidence be excluded from trial or that a case be dismissed before trial. In a motion hearing, each side presents arguments and evidence to the judge, who then makes a decision based on the law and facts presented.
  • Evidentiary hearings are used to resolve disputes related to evidence in a case. During an evidentiary hearing, parties present arguments and evidence related to the admissibility of certain evidence or the validity of expert testimony. The judge then makes a ruling on whether the evidence in question can be presented at trial.
  • Depositions are another type of hearing commonly used in the US legal system. Depositions involve sworn testimony from a witness or party in a case, taken outside of court and recorded by a court reporter. Depositions are often used to gather information before trial or to impeach the credibility of a witness at trial.

In the mid-20th century, as a result of what has been called the "due process revolution," a series of Supreme Court decisions expanded the rights of individuals in legal proceedings and required more formal procedures and protections.

One key decision during this period was Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), which involved a challenge to the system for terminating welfare benefits in New York. The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individuals have the opportunity to be heard and present evidence before their benefits are terminated.

The decision in Goldberg helped to establish the principle that many administrative decisions require some form of hearing or other procedure to ensure that individuals are not deprived of their rights without due process of law. It also illustrated that what constitutes a hearing can depend on the context. In Goldberg, the goal of a speedy decision was held to "justify the limitation of the pre-termination hearing to minimum procedural safeguards", which included such basic matters as the right to appear and to cross-examine witnesses, but did not include "a complete record and a comprehensive opinion". This has had a significant impact on the US legal system, leading to an increase in the number of hearings and other procedures required in a wide range of legal contexts.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Hearing (law)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A hearing in law is a formal proceeding before a , , or administrative body in which parties present and arguments on specific issues to a , , or hearing officer for resolution, typically without a . These proceedings address discrete legal or factual questions, such as , motions to suppress , or compliance with regulatory standards, rather than adjudicating an entire case on its merits. Hearings serve essential functions in the judicial and administrative processes, including evaluating under , of witnesses, and application of relevant statutes or rules to preliminary disputes. Common types encompass arraignments, where charges are formally read and pleas entered; pretrial conferences to assess case readiness and negotiate resolutions; and evidentiary hearings to test the sufficiency of proof for advancing a case. In administrative contexts, such as agency enforcement actions, hearings provide a mechanism for impartial fact-finding before final orders are issued. The procedural structure of hearings emphasizes efficiency and fairness, with testimony under oath, opportunities for rebuttal, and decisions based on the record developed during the session, thereby upholding due process principles without the formality of a full trial. While hearings can influence case trajectories—such as granting or denying or dismissing charges—they do not always result in final judgments, often serving as gateways to further litigation.

Definition and Purpose

Core Elements and Characteristics

A legal hearing constitutes a formal judicial or administrative proceeding, typically without a , in which parties or their representatives present , , and arguments to an impartial decision-maker for the resolution of specific factual or legal disputes. Such proceedings form a cornerstone of under the Fourteenth Amendment, ensuring that deprivations of , , or occur only after adequate safeguards, including and an opportunity to contest the government's position. Fundamental elements include prior to all interested parties detailing the hearing's scope, timing, and to facilitate preparation and response; the presence of a neutral presiding officer, such as a or hearing examiner, tasked with maintaining order and evaluating submissions; and structured opportunities for , encompassing oral arguments, submission of , witness examination, and of opposing claims. In contexts like preliminary or administrative hearings, this extends to rights, enabling parties to challenge witness credibility and evidentiary reliability directly. Hearings are characterized by their adversarial format in jurisdictions, where parties bear the burden of advancing their cases rather than relying on inquisitorial probing by the ; adherence to codified rules of procedure and , though often with relaxed formality compared to plenary trials; and decisional standards tailored to the proceeding's purpose, such as in preliminary matters or preponderance of the in civil disputes. Proceedings are generally recorded verbatim for appellate , promoting , and remain presumptively open to the public to uphold transparency, barring exceptions for or concerns. Unlike trials, hearings prioritize efficiency, frequently resolving narrower issues without exhaustive fact-finding, thereby serving as preliminary or mechanisms within broader litigation frameworks. Hearings in legal systems function to establish a formal record of facts, , and arguments, enabling decision-makers to evaluate claims and apply relevant without the full scope of a . This process upholds by affording parties an opportunity to be heard, present their positions, and challenge opposing under structured rules. A core objective is efficiency: hearings narrow disputed issues, resolve preliminary matters, and prevent unnecessary escalation to protracted proceedings, thereby conserving judicial resources while advancing case resolution. For instance, in criminal preliminary hearings under traditions, the prosecution must demonstrate —sufficient evidence that a occurred and the accused committed it—to justify binding the case over for , allowing early dismissal of weak claims. In administrative contexts, hearings review agency determinations, such as regulatory or benefit denials, by compiling an evidentiary record for impartial , which may include witness , cross-examination, and legal briefing to ensure decisions are fact-based and reviewable on . This objective promotes in executive actions, mitigating arbitrary through adversarial testing. Motion hearings target specific procedural or substantive disputes, such as admissibility or venue challenges, aiming to clarify legal boundaries early and facilitate informed preparation or settlement. Overall, these objectives prioritize factual accuracy and procedural fairness, grounded in the principle that requires verifiable over unsubstantiated assertions, while adapting to jurisdictional variations like the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's emphasis on streamlined discovery resolutions.

Distinction from Trials and Other Proceedings

Key Differences from Full Trials

Hearings and full trials serve distinct roles within judicial proceedings, with hearings generally focusing on preliminary, , or administrative matters rather than comprehensive resolution of a case's merits. Full trials determine ultimate liability, guilt, or civil remedies through exhaustive examination of and arguments, often culminating in a final judgment enforceable by . In contrast, hearings address narrower questions, such as in criminal cases, motion rulings, or compliance in administrative contexts, producing interim orders that may influence but do not conclude the underlying dispute. Procedural formality and evidentiary standards mark another fundamental divergence. Trials adhere to stringent rules, including the (or state equivalents), requiring proof beyond a in criminal matters or preponderance of evidence in civil ones, with , witness sequestration, and potential involvement to ensure safeguards. Hearings, however, permit relaxed evidentiary protocols; for example, preliminary hearings allow testimony and limit witness calls to establish only , bypassing the full adversarial rigor of trials to expedite disposition. This informality stems from hearings' non-dispositive nature, where the judge alone typically decides without a , reducing time from hours or days in hearings to weeks or months in trials. Outcomes further differentiate the two: trial verdicts yield binding resolutions, such as convictions, acquittals, or awards, subject to limited appellate on errors of or fact. Hearing determinations, by comparison, are provisional—binding probable cause findings bind over for without prejudging guilt, while motion hearings grant or deny specific without foreclosing further litigation. This structure promotes efficiency, as hearings filter meritless claims early, conserving resources for trials that proceed in under 1% of federal criminal filings post-indictment.
AspectHearingFull Trial
PurposeResolve specific issues (e.g., , motions)Adjudicate case merits (e.g., guilt, liability)
Evidentiary RulesRelaxed; often admissibleStrict; excludes , requires authentication
Standard of Proof or discretionBeyond (criminal) or preponderance (civil)
Decision-Maker only or
DurationBrief (minutes to hours)Extended (days to months)
FinalityInterim orders; may lead to Binding judgment; appeals limited
These distinctions reflect systemic priorities for speed and triage in hearings versus thoroughness in trials, though both uphold constitutional notice and opportunity to be heard.

Relations to Motions, Conferences, and Inquiries

Hearings frequently serve as the procedural mechanism for adjudicating motions, where parties present oral arguments, affidavits, or limited evidence to persuade the court or administrative body on requests such as dismissal, summary judgment, or discovery disputes. For instance, under local rules in federal districts like the Eastern District of Michigan, judges set specific dates for motion hearings with notice to affected parties, enabling structured presentation before a decision. Similarly, in administrative proceedings under regulations like 50 CFR Part 221, parties file motions with the administrative law judge (ALJ), who may convene a hearing to rule on procedural or substantive matters, ensuring due process in agency actions. This relation underscores hearings' role in resolving discrete issues efficiently, often without the full evidentiary scope of a trial. In contrast to standalone hearings, pretrial or prehearing conferences typically precede or complement them by focusing on case management, issue narrowing, and settlement discussions rather than adversarial evidence-taking. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 authorizes courts to hold pretrial conferences to schedule deadlines, explore voluntary dismissal, and identify motions like those for , potentially averting or shaping subsequent hearings. In administrative contexts, prehearing conferences clarify disputed facts and legal questions, streamline evidence presentation, and establish hearing procedures, as outlined in practices from institutions like Mitchell Hamline School of Law's administrative procedure guidance. These conferences thus function as preparatory tools, reducing the complexity of hearings by resolving preliminary matters informally while preserving parties' rights to a formal proceeding if disputes persist. Hearings also intersect with inquiries, particularly in legislative or administrative fact-finding, where they provide the structured forum for witness examination and evidence compilation during investigative processes. U.S. legislative inquiries, protected under the First Amendment as tools, routinely employ committee hearings to and question witnesses, as affirmed in cases like Watkins v. (1957), which delimited the scope of such compelled testimony. In , inquiries into regulatory violations or contested cases manifest as formal hearings before an ALJ, involving fact-finding under oath to determine compliance or rights, per Oregon's Office of Administrative Hearings procedures. Unlike motions' focus on specific relief or conferences' managerial aims, inquiry-related hearings emphasize broad evidentiary exploration, though they remain distinct from trials by lacking binding adjudicative finality in non-judicial settings. This integration ensures inquiries' investigative integrity through procedural safeguards like notice and .

Historical Development

Origins in English Common Law

The foundational practice of hearings in English emerged from the centralization of royal justice under Henry II during the . In 1178, Henry II designated five members of his household—two clerics and three laymen—to "hear all the complaints of the realm and to do right," thereby creating a dedicated bench for adjudicating civil disputes between private subjects, separate from the itinerant handling of Crown-related matters. This initiative addressed the growing volume of pleas overwhelming the , the King's itinerant council, and formalized a sedentary court that evolved into the Court of Common Pleas by the early . The emphasis on "hearing" complaints underscored the central to , where justices actively listened to parties' narratives and arguments to ascertain facts and apply precedents, rather than relying primarily on written inquisitions as in continental systems. These early hearings operated within a writ-based system, where plaintiffs initiated actions via royal writs directing sheriffs or justices to summon parties and convene sessions for pleadings. Justices in courts like Common Pleas would hear oral declarations, replications, and demurrers—points of law argued without evidence—to narrow issues before empaneling juries or issuing summary determinations. In criminal contexts, commissions of oyer et terminer (literally "to hear and determine"), first systematically employed from the late under Henry II's , authorized justices to convene local hearings for indictments, confessions, and preliminary inquiries, often resolving cases without full trials if guilt was admitted or evidence deemed sufficient. This procedure, rooted in the (1166) and subsequent reforms, prioritized swift royal oversight to curb feudal abuses, with hearings serving as the mechanism for voicing grievances and establishing . The adversarial character of these hearings, where parties presented competing oral accounts under justices' interrogation, fostered the development of evidentiary rules and stare decisis through recorded arguments, distinguishing common law from canon or civil law's emphasis on documentary proof. By the 13th century, as seen in the proliferation of eyre circuits and permanent benches at Westminster, hearings had become the procedural core for both substantive adjudication and interlocutory matters, such as challenges to writs or venue disputes, ensuring justice was dispensed through direct auditory engagement rather than delegated inquiry. This framework persisted, influencing later statutes like the Provisions of Oxford (1258), which sought to regulate hearing delays amid baronial complaints of procedural opacity.

Evolution in Modern Jurisdictions

In the United States, the evolution of judicial hearings from English roots accelerated in the 19th and 20th centuries through statutory reforms and procedural codification. The established federal district and circuit courts that conducted hearings akin to practices, emphasizing oral arguments and limited evidence presentation, but subsequent acts like the Process Act of 1789 aligned procedures with state practices influenced by . By the early 20th century, the confluence of growing caseloads and demands for efficiency led to the adoption of the in , which formalized pre-trial hearings for motions, discovery disputes, and summary judgments, shifting from rigid pleadings to more flexible, notice-based processes that prioritized fairness and expedition. Administrative hearings emerged as a distinct modern category amid the expansion of the regulatory state during the era of the 1930s, where agencies like the conducted investigatory and adjudicatory proceedings without uniform safeguards, prompting criticisms of agency bias and arbitrariness. The (APA) of 1946 addressed these by mandating formal adjudicatory hearings with requirements for notice, opportunity to present evidence, cross-examination in contested cases, and reasoned decisions based on the record, thereby importing trial-like elements into administrative contexts while preserving agency expertise. This framework influenced state-level adoptions, such as Texas's centralized Office of Administrative Hearings established in the late to enhance impartiality. In , 19th-century reforms under the Procedure Acts of 1852 and 1854, followed by the of 1873–1875, fused and equity jurisdictions, streamlining hearing procedures by eliminating duplicative forms and introducing uniform rules for and appeals, which reduced the procedural formalism inherited from writ systems. The 20th century brought further adaptations, including the Criminal Justice Act of 1967 permitting majority jury verdicts in certain hearings and restrictions on preliminary hearing publicity to protect fairness, reflecting a balance between tradition and modern evidentiary standards. Technological and procedural innovations in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, particularly accelerated by the from , introduced remote and virtual hearings across jurisdictions, with U.S. federal courts authorizing electronic participation under updated rules and many state systems permanently incorporating video platforms to maintain access amid disruptions. These changes built on prior efficiencies like the decline in full trials—federal civil trials dropped from 11.5% of dispositions in to under 1% by 2010—elevating hearings as primary dispute-resolution mechanisms while raising concerns over digital divides and procedural equity. Modern legislative hearings, such as U.S. confirmation proceedings exemplified by the 2017 hearing for , illustrate the extension of hearing formats to oversight and appointment processes, evolving from inquiries to structured events with and recorded transcripts since the .

Procedural Mechanics

Pre-Hearing Requirements and Notice

Pre-hearing requirements in legal hearings ensure compliance with principles, mandating that affected parties receive adequate and an opportunity to prepare, thereby preventing arbitrary deprivations of rights. Under the Fourteenth Amendment's , must inform individuals of the nature of the proceedings, the specific charges or issues involved, and the time and place of the hearing, allowing sufficient time for response. This requirement applies across judicial and administrative contexts, with failure to provide proper potentially rendering proceedings void. In judicial hearings, such as preliminary or pre-trial matters, notice is typically served via summons or motion papers, accompanied by proof of service filed with the prior to the scheduled date. For instance, in criminal preliminary hearings, the proceeding must occur within 14 days of the defendant's initial appearance unless waived, with prosecutors bearing the burden to establish through presented at the hearing. Pre-hearing motions, including those for discovery or suppression of , must often be filed within strict timelines, such as 45 days after in some jurisdictions, to resolve evidentiary or procedural disputes before the main hearing. Administrative hearings under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) similarly require reasonable notice, often including details on the legal authority, facts, and issues under consideration, with pre-hearing conferences mandated to narrow disputes, stipulate facts, and schedule further proceedings. Agencies may conduct pre-hearing discovery and require citing relevant authorities and records, ensuring parties identify witnesses and in advance to facilitate efficient . In formal APA adjudications, notice must precede the hearing by at least 30 days in certain cases, though informal proceedings may allow shorter periods if fairness is preserved. Variations exist by jurisdiction and hearing type; for example, immigration or special education due process hearings demand notice specifying alleged violations and proposed resolutions, with decisions required within 45 days absent extensions for good cause. These mechanisms prioritize causal efficiency in resolving disputes while safeguarding against bias or procedural shortcuts that could undermine evidentiary integrity.

Rules of Evidence and Conduct

In legal hearings, rules of evidence typically apply with greater flexibility compared to full trials, prioritizing efficiency and preliminary fact-finding over exhaustive admissibility standards. Unlike trials governed by strict codes such as the in U.S. federal courts, which exclude and require for and reliability, many hearings permit broader introduction of oral or documentary . For instance, in motion hearings, parties often rely on affidavits or declarations rather than live , with judges exercising to admit evidence pertinent to the specific issue without full . Administrative hearings under the U.S. (APA), codified at 5 U.S.C. § 556, exemplify this leniency: agencies may receive any oral or but must exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious material as a matter of . is admissible if deemed reliable, and the standard of proof defaults to preponderance of evidence unless statute specifies otherwise, contrasting with the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt threshold in criminal trials. This approach facilitates administrative efficiency but relies on agency discretion to weigh probative value, potentially admitting materials that would be barred in judicial proceedings. In preliminary or evidentiary hearings within judicial contexts, such as those determining , evidence sufficient to establish a case is presented, often without the full evidentiary safeguards of trials. Rules of conduct in hearings emphasize maintaining order, professionalism, and fairness to ensure proceedings remain focused and impartial. Presiding officers, whether judges or judges, are required to uphold , demanding punctuality, courteous interactions, and restraint from disruptive behaviors such as whispering, using electronic devices, or consuming food in the . Participants, including attorneys and witnesses, must adhere to standards of civility, preparation, and respect for the , with witnesses typically placed under or affirmation to testify truthfully, subject to in formal settings. The for Judges mandates fidelity to , free from partisan influence, and courteous treatment of all involved, reinforcing the hearing's as a structured forum for argumentation rather than adversarial . Violations of conduct rules can result in sanctions, findings, or procedural disadvantages, underscoring their enforcement to preserve the integrity of the process.

Post-Hearing Decisions and Remedies

Following a legal hearing, the presiding officer—such as a judge in judicial proceedings or an administrative law judge (ALJ) in administrative contexts—typically deliberates on the evidence presented and issues a written decision or order. This decision must be grounded in the hearing record, including testimony, exhibits, and any post-hearing briefs submitted by parties, and includes findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the rationale for the outcome. In administrative hearings, decisions are often issued within specified timelines, such as 90 days after the hearing request in Social Security Administration cases, though extensions may occur for complex matters. Judicial hearings, by contrast, may result in immediate oral rulings for simple matters like motion hearings, but formal written orders follow shortly thereafter to provide clarity and grounds for appeal. Decisions from hearings can be interlocutory (preliminary, such as granting a temporary ) or final (resolving the core dispute, like affirming or denying an administrative claim). In administrative settings, outcomes frequently involve upholding, modifying, or reversing agency actions, with the ALJ's initial decision potentially subject to by an agency board before becoming final. Remedies articulated in these decisions vary by jurisdiction and hearing type but commonly include orders for compliance, restitution, or cessation of conduct; for instance, in evidentiary hearings, courts may award preliminary like asset freezes under federal rules if prejudgment remedies are sought to prevent of assets. Enforcement mechanisms, such as proceedings for non-compliance, ensure remedies are effectuated, potentially leading to fines or incarceration. Parties dissatisfied with a hearing decision have limited post-hearing remedies, prioritizing appeals over immediate collateral attacks to preserve judicial efficiency. In administrative processes, a party may request reconsideration by the issuing officer within a short window, such as 15 days, citing errors or new , though success rates remain low absent compelling grounds. Appeals typically proceed to a higher administrative body or , where the record is reviewed de novo or for substantial , as in Article 78 proceedings in New York challenging agency determinations. In federal courts, Rule 60 provides relief from judgments or orders for reasons including mistake, newly discovered , , or if the judgment is void or inequitable, but such motions must be filed promptly and do not toll appeal deadlines. These remedies underscore the hearing's role as an intermediate step, with finality often contingent on exhaustion of administrative options before .

Classification by Type

Judicial Hearings

Judicial hearings constitute formal proceedings presided over by a in a of , distinct from full trials by their focus on resolving discrete legal issues rather than adjudicating the entire merits of a case. These hearings typically occur without a , involve presentation of arguments, , or on specific matters, and culminate in the 's ruling, which may be or dispositive for the issue at hand. Unlike trials, which determine ultimate liability or guilt through comprehensive fact-finding, judicial hearings emphasize efficiency in addressing preliminary, evidentiary, or procedural questions, often lasting from minutes to hours rather than days or weeks. The primary purposes of judicial hearings include establishing , ruling on motions, setting , or conducting sentencings post-conviction, thereby streamlining case progression while upholding procedural fairness. In criminal contexts, preliminary hearings assess whether sufficient exists to bind a case over for , requiring the prosecution to demonstrate a case beyond mere . Civil judicial hearings similarly handle motions to dismiss, , or discovery disputes, preventing protracted litigation on unfounded claims. These mechanisms derive from constitutional requirements, ensuring parties can contest government actions or opponent assertions before escalation to . Common types encompass arraignments, where defendants are informed of charges and enter pleas; or bond hearings evaluating release conditions based on flight risk and danger assessments; motion hearings adjudicating requests like suppression of under rules excluding illegally obtained materials; and evidentiary hearings testing credibility or document admissibility. Sentencing hearings, following guilty pleas or verdicts, involve victim impact statements, mitigation arguments, and application of statutory guidelines, such as the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines established under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which mandate consideration of offense severity and criminal history. Procedures in judicial hearings mandate prior notice to parties, typically 7-21 days depending on and hearing type, allowing preparation of briefs or witnesses. Conduct adheres to evidentiary rules like the in U.S. federal courts, though with flexibility for non-trial contexts—e.g., may be admitted in preliminary hearings if reliable. Parties present orally or via , with where is taken; the judge may question participants directly. Decisions issue from the bench or in written orders, subject to in limited circumstances, such as abuse of discretion. Empirical data from federal courts indicate hearings resolve over 90% of civil motions without , underscoring their role in docket management.

Administrative Hearings

Administrative hearings are formal proceedings conducted by administrative agencies or administrative law judges (ALJs) to adjudicate disputes within the regulatory authority of executive branch entities, such as licensing denials, enforcement violations, or benefit eligibility claims. These hearings allow affected parties to present evidence, call witnesses, and argue their case before an agency official, establishing a factual record for decision-making. Governed primarily by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946, they prioritize efficiency and agency specialization over the stricter formalities of courtroom trials, with no jury involvement and relaxed evidentiary standards. Under the APA, codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559 and enacted on June 11, 1946, agencies must provide notice of hearings to interested parties, detailing the issues and legal basis involved. The presiding ALJ or hearing officer holds authority to administer oaths, witnesses, rule on admissibility, and regulate hearing conduct, with decisions required to rest on the hearing record and relevant . Burden of proof typically falls on the proponent of a rule or order, though agencies bear the onus in enforcement actions. Hearings may occur in person, via telephone, video, or on a written record, adapting to case specifics while ensuring elements like opportunity for rebuttal. Distinct from judicial hearings, administrative proceedings emphasize speed and expertise, often resolving matters in months rather than years, without binding from prior agency decisions unless statutorily mandated. Evidence rules permit and other materials if reliable, contrasting court standards under the . Final agency orders from these hearings carry presumptive validity but remain subject to in federal courts, where courts assess whether actions were arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial . Examples include Social Security disability appeals before ALJs or environmental compliance disputes at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Legislative and Quasi-Judicial Hearings

Legislative hearings are formal proceedings conducted by legislative bodies, such as committees in the U.S. Congress, to gather information, solicit public input, and deliberate on proposed , oversight of executive actions, or nominations. These hearings typically involve from witnesses, including experts, officials, and stakeholders, and are open to the public to promote transparency in the lawmaking process. Unlike judicial proceedings, they do not adjudicate disputes but inform policy decisions, with no strict evidentiary rules; participants may offer opinions without in a trial-like manner. In the United States, congressional committees hold legislative hearings on subjects like bill proposals or investigative matters, as seen in the Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings for judicial nominees, where senators question candidates on qualifications and views. For instance, the House Oversight Committee conducted hearings on topics such as foreign aid impacts in 2025, aiming to shape legislative responses. These sessions allow broad public comment, influencing outcomes like amendments to bills, but decisions remain discretionary and policy-oriented rather than bound by specific facts. Quasi-judicial hearings, by contrast, occur in administrative or regulatory contexts where agencies or boards exercise authority akin to courts by applying existing laws or regulations to specific disputes or applications. These proceedings, often presided over by administrative law judges (ALJs) in federal agencies, require evidentiary presentations, , and decisions based on a factual record, mirroring judicial but without full Article III protections. Over 1,000 ALJs operate across 28 U.S. federal agencies, handling cases like enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission or disputes before the . Key distinctions include the scope and standards: legislative hearings establish or refine broad policies through open discourse, unbound by or strict rules, whereas quasi-judicial hearings resolve individual cases under predefined criteria, demanding neutrality and record-based findings to avoid arbitrary outcomes. In quasi-judicial settings, decision-makers must disclose conflicts and limit deliberations to presented , contrasting with legislative flexibility that permits communications. Empirical data indicates agencies prevail in approximately 92% of in-house quasi-judicial adjudications, compared to 55% upon federal court review, highlighting potential incentives for internal resolution but raising scrutiny.

Variations Across Jurisdictions

United States Practices

In the , hearings in judicial proceedings are governed by the for civil matters and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for criminal cases, with state courts following analogous rules tailored to their jurisdictions. courts, as trial-level venues, conduct hearings such as arraignments and preliminary hearings, where the latter must occur within 14 days of a defendant's initial appearance if detained, to determine . These proceedings emphasize the , wherein parties present evidence and arguments before a , often without a unless specified, contrasting with full trials by focusing on preliminary or dispositive motions. Constitutional due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments mandates notice of charges, an opportunity to be heard, and an impartial decision-maker for any deprivation of life, liberty, or property, as interpreted by the Supreme Court to require procedures balancing individual interests against governmental efficiency. In civil contexts, Rule 16 of the Federal Rules enables pretrial conferences to streamline issues, while evidentiary standards, though guided by the Federal Rules of Evidence, permit judges broader discretion in hearings than in trials. State practices mirror these federally but vary; for instance, many states require similar timelines for preliminary hearings in criminal cases to safeguard against prolonged detention without probable cause. Administrative hearings, primarily regulated by the (APA) of 1946, apply to federal agency adjudications involving rulemaking or enforcement. Formal hearings under 5 U.S.C. § 556 are presided over by administrative law judges (ALJs), who possess authority to administer oaths, issue subpoenas, rule on evidence admissibility, and examine witnesses, though procedures are less rigid than judicial ones to accommodate agency expertise. Agencies may opt for informal adjudications without full hearings when statutes permit, subject to for arbitrary or capricious actions. applies, ensuring contested facts receive fair evidentiary consideration, with appeals routed to federal courts under APA standards deferring to agency findings unless unsupported by substantial evidence. Legislative hearings, conducted by congressional committees, serve oversight, investigative, legislative, and confirmation purposes, as classified in and rules updated periodically. These are typically public forums where witnesses provide testimony under oath, with committees issuing subpoenas and questioning to inform policy or verify nominations, such as Supreme Court confirmations requiring Judiciary Committee hearings followed by floor votes. rules mandate at least seven days' notice for hearings, promoting transparency, though closed sessions occur for classified matters. Unlike judicial or administrative hearings, legislative ones lack binding adjudicative power but influence through reports and recommendations, with no formal entitlements for participants beyond committee procedural fairness.

United Kingdom and Commonwealth Systems

In the , legal hearings primarily occur within an adversarial framework, where parties present and arguments orally before an impartial or panel, with decisions based on the balance of probabilities in civil matters or proof beyond in criminal cases. Criminal proceedings commence in magistrates' courts, presided over by lay magistrates or district s without a , handling summary offenses and preliminary stages of indictable offenses; more serious cases proceed to the , involving a circuit and for fact-finding. Civil hearings, governed by the (CPR), emphasize case management conferences and pre-trial reviews to streamline disputes, with final hearings in county courts or the focusing on witness testimony and under strict admissibility standards. The general rule mandates public hearings to uphold transparency, though exceptions apply for or , as per CPR Part 39. Administrative hearings in the UK are predominantly managed through tribunals under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act , which integrate over 20 specialist chambers covering areas like , , , and social security appeals. These proceedings adopt a more inquisitorial approach than traditional courts, with tribunal judges or panels actively inquiring into facts to resolve disputes against public body decisions, often without strict rules of evidence and prioritizing accessibility for unrepresented litigants. Hearings are typically public and can be conducted in person, by video, or , reflecting post-2020 adaptations for efficiency, though in-person remains default in certain circuits to ensure procedural fairness. Public inquiries, established under the Inquiries Act 2005, address matters of significant public concern such as disasters or systemic failures, featuring formal hearings where witnesses provide oral evidence under oath, subject to by to the inquiry. These non-statutory or statutory processes aim to ascertain facts and recommend reforms without determining civil or criminal liability, as exemplified by inquiries into events like the , where evidence sessions spanned months and informed policy changes. Commonwealth jurisdictions, inheriting the 's tradition, maintain analogous hearing structures with adversarial oral proceedings, though adapted to federal or regional contexts; for instance, Australia's Federal Court employs similar pre-hearing directions and rules under the Federal Court Rules, while Canada's provincial superior courts mirror criminal formats with emphasis on viva voce testimony. Tribunals in nations like and handle administrative appeals with procedural flexibility akin to models, prioritizing principles over rigid formalism, yet variations exist such as mandatory prerequisites in some Australian civil hearings to reduce court burdens. Overall, these systems privilege presentation and judicial discretion, diverging from civil law inquisitorial dominance by placing evidentiary burdens squarely on parties.

Civil Law and International Contexts

In civil law jurisdictions, such as those in , hearings emphasize written submissions over extensive oral proceedings, reflecting an inquisitorial approach where s actively investigate facts rather than relying primarily on adversarial presentations by parties. is typically gathered and submitted in writing during preparatory phases, with oral hearings serving mainly to clarify disputes or hear witnesses if necessary, rather than constituting the core of fact-finding. This contrasts with systems by minimizing multiple pretrial hearings and integrating evidence presentation into a singular main or final hearing before a or panel. In , for instance, civil procedure mandates an oral hearing in most cases under the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung), where parties present arguments verbally, but the session often functions as a formality to record positions already detailed in writing, with judges directing inquiries to resolve ambiguities. Judges bear primary responsibility for fact investigation, summoning evidence independently if needed, which reduces the scope of party-driven oral advocacy and prioritizes efficiency in resolving claims. Similarly, in French civil procedure, hearings focus on judicial examination of pre-submitted dossiers, with oral debate limited unless new elements emerge, underscoring the system's reliance on codified rules over precedent-based oral confrontations. At the European Union level, the Court of Justice of the (CJEU) conducts oral hearings selectively, waiving them in approximately 70% of cases since procedural reforms emphasized written pleadings for speed, reserving orals for factual disputes requiring or clarification. Hearings, when held, involve structured arguments before a bench of judges acting as umpires, monitoring exchanges without extensive , aligning with civil law's documentary foundation. In international contexts, hearings adapt civil law influences with hybrid elements to address cross-jurisdictional disputes. The (ICJ), as the principal judicial organ of the , holds public oral hearings for contentious cases and advisory opinions, where states present arguments over several days, as seen in the ongoing proceedings on the right to strike under ILO Convention No. 87, scheduled from October 6 to 8, 2025. These hearings follow written phases, with judges questioning agents to probe legal and factual issues, emphasizing state sovereignty and treaty interpretation over domestic evidentiary battles. The International Criminal Court (ICC) incorporates hearings in phases like confirmation of charges, where prosecutors, defense, and victims' representatives argue before pretrial judges within 60 days of warrants, deciding on sufficient for ; this process blends inquisitorial fact-checking with adversarial input. Similarly, the International Tribunal for the (ITLOS) convenes public hearings for maritime disputes, such as the M/T “Heroic Idun” case opening on October 6, 2025, focusing on urgent provisional measures through oral submissions. Across these tribunals, hearings prioritize procedural fairness under statutes like the for the ICC or ICJ Statute, often limiting orals to essentials while favoring written memorials to accommodate diverse legal traditions.

Criticisms, Controversies, and Reforms

Due Process and Bias Concerns

In legal hearings, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. requires an impartial decision-maker to ensure fair proceedings, as biased adjudication deprives parties of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Courts have invalidated hearings where actual or apparent bias exists, such as personal financial interests or prejudgment by the , emphasizing that neutrality is essential to prevent arbitrary deprivations of life, liberty, or property. For instance, in pretermination hearings for public employees under Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985), the involvement of a biased —such as one directly implicated in the employee's allegations—undermines the process, as it fails to provide the requisite neutral evaluation despite minimal procedural safeguards. Administrative hearings raise particular concerns to agencies' dual roles in investigation, prosecution, and , which can foster institutional partiality favoring regulatory goals over individual rights. The in Withrow v. Larkin (1975) held that this combination does not per se violate without of actual , yet empirical critiques highlight persistent risks, including where adjudicators favor agency positions based on prior exposure to . Studies of judges (ALJs) reveal that resource constraints—such as high caseloads and limited support—correlate with biased decision-making patterns, as under-resourced tribunals prioritize efficiency over thorough , leading to higher rates on for procedural unfairness. Agency loyalty among adjudicators, often appointed through politically influenced processes, exacerbates these issues; for example, analyses of hearings from 2010–2020 show ALJ approval rates varying by up to 50% across individuals, attributable in part to ideological predispositions rather than case merits alone. Empirical research on judicial bias in hearings underscores subtle but measurable influences, including implicit associations that affect credibility assessments and evidentiary weighing. Controlled studies indicate judges exhibit unconscious biases similar to the general population, such as favoring in-group demographics in evaluations, though these effects diminish when controlling for legal precedents, case facts, and explicit . In evidentiary hearings, auditory cues like accents or demeanor can trigger heuristics leading to disparate outcomes; for instance, experimental data from mock administrative proceedings demonstrate a 15–20% variance in rulings influenced by non-substantive factors, independent of strength. persists as a challenge, with inconclusive evidence from win-rate analyses in agency appeals, but qualitative accounts from adjudicators confirm its in anchoring initial impressions during oral arguments. These findings, drawn from peer-reviewed analyses rather than anecdotal reports, suggest structural reforms like mandatory recusal protocols or external oversight are needed to mitigate risks without presuming systemic invalidity.

Impact of Virtual Hearings Post-2020

The prompted widespread adoption of virtual hearings in judicial systems globally beginning in March 2020, with platforms like Zoom facilitating remote proceedings to maintain operations amid lockdowns and health restrictions. By mid-2021, jurisdictions such as U.S. states and Canadian provinces had conducted millions of virtual sessions, and many retained hybrid models post-emergency, citing sustained operational needs. Virtual hearings yielded measurable efficiency gains, including reduced travel costs and time—85% of surveyed prosecutors and defense attorneys in three U.S. counties reported savings, while judges noted 70% agreement on expedited minor proceedings like status conferences. Appearance rates improved in select contexts, such as juvenile courts, where remote access boosted family participation without physical presence barriers. In child welfare cases, remote formats decreased intimidation for parents, enabled involvement (e.g., international attendees), and accelerated dockets by minimizing logistics, though comprehensive longitudinal data remains sparse. However, technical malfunctions undermined reliability, with 78% of defense attorneys in a 2020-2021 U.S. study citing poor audio quality and 60% poor video, leading to frequent disruptions like frozen screens observed in all 44 monitored criminal sessions. Disorganization affected 75% of those observations, including unclear scheduling and unprepared participants, resulting in postponed hearings—one-third of detention cases delayed, extending pretrial custody. Due process concerns emerged prominently in criminal contexts, where 77.9% of defense attorneys reported compromised access to , driven by hindered attorney-client communication (66.3%) and breaches (81.1%), particularly for in-custody defendants lacking reliable (36%). Dehumanizing effects, such as loss of nonverbal cues and defendants appearing in prison attire or muted, raised issues in over 50% of interviews across , , and courts, potentially biasing credibility assessments and negotiations. Incarcerated individuals faced disproportionate harms, including extended detentions from glitches, exacerbating disparities for low-income and racialized groups amid the . Empirical outcomes remain mixed, with 45% of users in broader surveys preferring virtual over in-person formats for convenience, yet defense perspectives highlighting risks of unfair resolutions—92.6% found online case presentation difficult. In child welfare, while participation rose, unaddressed biases like judges scrutinizing home backgrounds via video persist without robust evidence of permanency impacts. By 2025, hybrid systems prevail in many U.S. and courts for non-evidentiary matters, balancing efficiency against evidentiary safeguards, though calls for tech equity and procedural reforms continue amid limited post-pandemic longitudinal studies.

Efficiency Reforms and Empirical Outcomes

In the , the Revised Guidelines for Continuous of Criminal Cases, implemented on September 1, 2017, imposed strict timelines on trial phases, prohibited resetting hearings except in exceptional circumstances, and required continuous progression once initiated, aiming to streamline criminal hearings and reduce congestion. Empirical of administrative data from over 330 showed clearance rates rising by 35-36 percentage points post-reform, with average disposition times shortening by 55-61 days (10-14% reduction); the share of cases resolved within 180 days increased by 8 percentage points (to 54%), and within 330 days by 9 percentage points (to 41%). However, total disposition rates did not significantly change, yielding no net reduction in court backlogs, as incoming caseloads offset gains in speed. United States jurisdictions have pursued efficiency through case processing time standards and procedural adjustments in hearings, such as mandatory scheduling orders and limits on continuances. For example, several states set benchmarks for civil cases, including disposition of 90% within 18 months of filing, to minimize hearing delays and promote early resolution. Federal civil discovery reforms, including local rules curbing expansive requests, sought to shorten pre-hearing preparation but yielded limited empirical success, with ongoing reports of protracted disputes and high costs persisting. Appellate-level measures, like expedited briefing, have reduced median disposition times in some circuits, but overall federal caseload pressures continue to strain hearing resources without proportional throughput improvements. In criminal contexts, efficiency reforms emphasizing rapid hearings have correlated with a surge in dispositions, avoiding full evidentiary proceedings; federal guilty rates climbed from 86% in 1970 to 97% by 2009, amid stable or rising caseloads. This trend, while accelerating case closure, exhibits perverse effects: lower per-case adjudication costs incentivize prosecutors to pursue marginal charges, contributing to incarceration rates quadrupling from 104 to 492 per 100,000 population between 1974 and 2005, and potentially eroding hearing quality through reduced scrutiny of . Cross-national reviews of procedural reforms, including hearing-focused interventions like specialized dockets and clerical support enhancements, find targeted changes can boost clearance rates and shorten times in writ-of-payment and similar streamlined matters, but success hinges on alignment with local caseload dynamics. Metrics such as clearance rates and times, while indicating throughput gains, incompletely capture by ignoring , error rates, and output quality, often leading to overreliance on volume over substantive .

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearing
  2. https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/hearing.html
  3. https://dictionary.nolo.com/hearing-term.html
  4. https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/preliminary-hearing
  5. https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/ah/supp_info/the_hearing_process/what_to_expect_atahearing.html
  6. https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/pao/courts-jails-legal-system/victim-services-resources/criminal-justice-process/arraignment-charging
  7. https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/pao/courts-jails-legal-system/victim-services-resources/criminal-justice-process/pre-trial-hearing
  8. https://oah.idaho.gov/representing-yourself/at-the-hearing/
  9. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.105.200
  10. https://www.piercecountywa.gov/3571/Criminal-Justice-System-Pretrial-Proceed
  11. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=857
  12. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-5-1/ALDE_00013747/
  13. https://dlg.colorado.gov/due-process-and-personal-liability
  14. https://www.nyc.gov/site/oath/about/glossary-of-legal-terms.page
  15. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/brb/References/reference_works/bla/bldesk/BD04-C2.pdf
  16. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_hearing
  17. https://www.justia.com/administrative-law/administrative-hearings/
  18. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/pretrial_appearances/
  19. https://disb.dc.gov/page/administrative-hearing-process
  20. https://www.ohiobar.org/member-tools-benefits/practice-resources/practice-library-search/practice-library/section-newsletters/2024/administrative-law-vs.-traditional-litigation/
  21. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure
  22. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-difference-between-preliminary-hearing-trial.html
  23. https://www.rothdavies.com/criminal-defense/frequently-asked-questions-about-criminal-defense/the-preliminary-hearing/do-the-rules-of-evidence-differ-at-preliminary-hearings-vs-trials/
  24. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/going-going-but-not-quite-gone-trials-continue-to-decline-in-federal-and-state-courts-does-it-matter/
  25. https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/altindex.cfm?pagefunction=localruleView&lrnumber=lr7.1
  26. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-50/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-221/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFR4b4be2d5da5b2db
  27. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_16
  28. https://mitchellhamline.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2015/06/MAP_Chapter_7.3.pdf
  29. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/legislative-inquiries
  30. https://www.oregon.gov/oah/pages/representing_yourself.aspx
  31. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/history-of-the-judiciary-in-england-and-wales/history-of-the-judiciary/
  32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/844792
  33. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstreams/db022bbf-58be-4a05-927d-200d02421306/download
  34. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/judges-and-judging-in-the-history-of-the-common-law-and-civil-law/common-law/CCAC47BB0EFE3B08FD242973B5E63A46
  35. https://clicme.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/encyc/level1/
  36. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/henryii_law_01.shtml
  37. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_Historical_Foundations_of_Law_of_Evidence.pdf
  38. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/20191114-FINAL-Plymouth-lecture-Nov2019-For-publication.pdf
  39. https://www.fjc.gov/history/work-courts/rules-pre-1934-rulemaking
  40. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1732&context=elr
  41. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/laworder/court/overview/judicialreform/
  42. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3063&context=facpubs
  43. https://www.uscourts.gov/court-records/access-court-proceedings/remote-public-access-proceedings/history-cameras-broadcasting-and-remote-public-access-courts
  44. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/amendment-xiv/clauses/701
  45. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-5-4-3/ALDE_00013752/
  46. https://nyccrimelawyer.com/pre-trial-hearings-and-motions/
  47. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-C/part-160/subpart-E
  48. https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ic/chapter-4/19
  49. https://mitchellhamline.edu/minnesota-administrative-procedure/chapter-5-notice-of-hearing/
  50. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH/Case-Types/Special-Education/Self-Help/Due-Process-Hearings
  51. https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-evidence
  52. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
  53. https://mncourts.gov/help-topics/evidence-and-exhibits/trials-vs-motions
  54. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/556.html
  55. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2011-title5/USCODE-2011-title5-partI-chap5-subchapII-sec556
  56. https://www.granolaw.com/blog/preliminary-hearings-vs-jury-trials/
  57. https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/going-to-court/your-conduct-in-court-can-affect-your-case.html
  58. http://www.libertycountyga.gov/547/Dress-Code-Courtroom-Etiquette-Basic-Rul
  59. https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/pages/LandingPage.php?page=standards-for-professional-conduct
  60. https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/ethics-policies/code-conduct-united-states-judges
  61. https://www.iowacourts.gov/static/media/cms/Chapter51IowaCodeofJudicialConduct_1B34466ABBED7.pdf
  62. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-B/part-150/subpart-D
  63. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/chapter-III/part-416/subpart-N/subject-group-ECFR7dd6b418bf30ede
  64. https://portal.ct.gov/dss/the-office-of-legal-counsel-regulations-and-administrative-hearings/office-of-legal-counsel-regulations-and-administrative-hearings---olcrah/after-the-hearing-decision
  65. https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/
  66. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3101
  67. https://www.courts.maine.gov/courts/family/changing.html
  68. https://www.lawny.org/node/62/article-78-proceedings-how-appeal-agency-decision
  69. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_60
  70. https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/1300/Basic-Overview-of-the-Criminal-Justice-S
  71. https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/criminal-court/overview/pretrial
  72. https://www.rev.com/blog/court-hearing-types
  73. https://www.arvadaco.gov/389/Court-Hearing-Types
  74. https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary
  75. https://www.piercecountywa.gov/776/Types-of-Hearings-You-Will-Have
  76. https://bals.org/help/resources/hearings-trials-7-things-you-need-know
  77. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_procedure_act
  78. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/556
  79. https://www.belolaw.com/blog/how-is-an-administrative-evidentiary-hearing-different-from-a-court-hearing/
  80. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/98-317
  81. https://www.senate.gov/committees/committees_faq.htm
  82. https://www.govinfo.gov/help/chrg
  83. https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/
  84. https://www.southernpines.net/DocumentCenter/View/9003/Citizens-Guide-to-Legislative-and-Evidentiary-Hearings
  85. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quasi-judicial
  86. https://www.justia.com/administrative-law/administrative-law-faqs/
  87. https://www.gao.gov/products/fpcd-78-25
  88. https://www.extension.iastate.edu/communities/legislative-v-quasi-judicial-land-use-decisions
  89. https://www.mrsc.org/explore-topics/public-meetings/hearings/public-hearings
  90. https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/federal-agencies-stack-their-courts-against-you/
  91. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp
  92. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_5.1
  93. https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/steps-federal-criminal-process
  94. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/12-procedural-due-process.html
  95. https://www.fjc.gov/history/work-courts/rules-federal-rules-civil-procedure
  96. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts
  97. https://www.acus.gov/document/evidentiary-hearings-not-required-administrative-procedure-act
  98. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10558
  99. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RS/PDF/98-317/98-317.20.pdf
  100. https://www.senate.gov/committees/hearings_meetings.htm
  101. https://www.aei.org/social-cultural-and-constitutional-studies/legal-and-constitutional/legislature/ten-questions-about-congressional-hearings/
  102. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL30548.html
  103. https://www.gov.uk/courts
  104. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil
  105. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part39
  106. https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/tribunals/
  107. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/what-to-expect-when-joining-a-telephone-or-video-hearing
  108. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/2005/12
  109. https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/a-guide-to-public-inquiries
  110. https://www.ibanet.org/The-British-Empire-and-the-rule-of-law
  111. https://ppp.worldbank.org/key-features-common-and-civil-law-systems
  112. http://judiciariesworldwide.fjc.gov/comparative-criminal-procedure
  113. http://judiciariesworldwide.fjc.gov/civil-litigation
  114. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/7581-us-civil-procedure-for-international-students-2022-2023-edition/resources/3.3.2-civil-law-versus-common-law-court-systems/
  115. https://www.germancivilprocedure.com/the-requirement-of-an-oral-hearing-in-german-civil-procedure/
  116. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_The_German_Advantage_in_Civil_Procedure.pdf
  117. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law-mpeipro/e3819.013.3819/law-mpeipro-e3819
  118. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3de41f68-d3ae-4cb9-8b87-7534b8df9221
  119. https://www.icj-cij.org/home
  120. https://www.icj-cij.org/calendar
  121. https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works
  122. https://www.itlos.org/en/main/cases/schedule-of-hearings/
  123. https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/internationalcourts
  124. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/fifth-amendment-due-process-unbiased-judge-and-impartial-jury.html
  125. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process
  126. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2847&context=flr
  127. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4910&context=buffalolawreview
  128. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1702&context=naalj
  129. https://racism.org/articles/law-and-justice/375-legal-system-and-racism/11477-all-cases
  130. https://administrativelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/07/ALR-75.2_Asimow.pdf
  131. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/getting-explicit-about-implicit-bias/
  132. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/bias-judging-arps.pdf
  133. https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1881&context=all_fac
  134. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2067&context=fac_artchop
  135. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Virtual-Justice-Final-Aug-2021.pdf
  136. https://www.onelegal.com/blog/beyond-covid-the-modern-role-of-virtual-court-proceedings/
  137. https://www.casey.org/media/24.07-QFF-TS-Remote-court-hearings_fnl.pdf
  138. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8804712/
  139. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/do-remote-hearings-help-or-hurt-access-to-justice/
  140. https://weilers.ca/2025/06/26/remote-hearings-ontario/
  141. https://poverty-action.org/study/impacts-judicial-reform-criminal-case-procedures-court-congestion-philippines
  142. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/case-processing-time-standards-take-hold-in-state-courts/
  143. https://www.uscourts.gov/file/document/centre-cannot-hold-need-effective-reform-us-civil-discovery-process
  144. https://www.virginialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Brown_Book.pdf
  145. https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/40/2/185/7694221
  146. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818825000390
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.