Extra-record evidence

Definition

Extra-record evidence refers to information or materials that are not included in the official administrative record of a case but may be considered by a reviewing court. This type of evidence can include affidavits, expert opinions, or documents that provide context or insight into the administrative process and the agency's decision-making. In certain situations, this evidence can help illuminate issues such as procedural fairness or whether the agency acted within its authority.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Extra-record evidence is typically not allowed in judicial reviews unless there are specific exceptions, such as when evaluating whether an agency followed proper procedures.
2. Judges may allow extra-record evidence if it serves to explain the agency's reasoning or if it shows that the agency's decision was arbitrary or capricious.
3. The use of extra-record evidence can vary based on jurisdiction, with some courts more permissive than others regarding its inclusion.
4. Parties seeking to introduce extra-record evidence must usually demonstrate that it is necessary to achieve a fair evaluation of the administrative action.
5. Extra-record evidence can play a crucial role in cases involving complex technical issues where the administrative record may not fully capture the necessary context.

Review Questions

• What are the circumstances under which extra-record evidence might be considered in judicial review?
  • Extra-record evidence may be considered in judicial review under specific circumstances, such as when it is needed to show that an agency failed to follow proper procedures or when it explains the rationale behind an agency's decision. Courts may allow this type of evidence to ensure that the review is comprehensive and fair, especially in cases where the administrative record alone does not provide sufficient context. However, introducing such evidence often requires demonstrating its necessity and relevance to the case at hand.
• How does extra-record evidence impact the relationship between administrative agencies and judicial oversight?
  • Extra-record evidence impacts the relationship between administrative agencies and judicial oversight by providing courts with additional context that may be necessary for a thorough review of an agency's actions. While agencies typically rely on their official records to defend decisions, the introduction of extra-record evidence allows courts to examine whether an agency's processes were transparent and fair. This scrutiny helps maintain a balance of power between agencies and the judiciary, ensuring accountability and adherence to legal standards.
• Evaluate the implications of allowing extra-record evidence in administrative law cases on the principles of administrative efficiency and fairness.
  • Allowing extra-record evidence in administrative law cases raises important implications for both administrative efficiency and fairness. On one hand, incorporating such evidence can enhance fairness by ensuring all relevant information is considered, particularly in complex cases where technical details are pivotal. However, this practice may also lead to increased litigation and prolong the review process, challenging the goal of efficiency within administrative procedures. Striking a balance between these competing interests is crucial for maintaining effective governance while safeguarding individual rights and ensuring just outcomes.

Related terms

Administrative Record: The official compilation of all documents, transcripts, and evidence considered by an agency during the decision-making process.

Judicial Review: The process by which courts examine the actions of administrative agencies to ensure they comply with legal standards and do not exceed their authority.

Substantial Evidence Test: A standard used by courts to determine whether an agency's decision is supported by adequate evidence, often applied during judicial review.