Quasi-judicial body

Such bodies usually have powers of adjudication in such matters as:

• breach of discipline
• conduct rules
• trust in the matters of money or otherwise

Their powers are usually limited to a very specific area of expertise and authority, such as land use and zoning, financial markets, employment law, public standards, and/or a specific set of regulations of an agency.[1]

There are some key differences between judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, in that:

• Judicial decisions are bound by precedent in common law, whereas quasi-judicial decisions usually are not so bound;
• In the absence of precedent in common law, judicial decisions may create new law, whereas quasi-judicial decisions must be based on conclusions of existing law;[1]
• Quasi-judicial bodies need not always follow strict judicial rules of evidence and procedure;
• Quasi-judicial bodies must hold formal hearings only if mandated to do so under their governing laws, regulations or agreements;[1]
• Quasi-judicial bodies, unlike courts, may be a party in a matter and issue a decision thereon at the same time, depending on the specifically governing rules.

In general, decisions of a quasi-judicial body require findings of facts to reach conclusions of law that justify the decision. They usually depend on a pre-determined set of guidelines or criteria to assess the nature and gravity of the permission or relief sought, or of the offense committed. Decisions of a quasi-judicial body are often legally enforceable under the laws of a jurisdiction; they can be challenged in a court of law, which is the final decisive authority.[1]

The following is a partial list of quasi-judicial bodies:

• Mashaw, Jerry L., Richard A. Merrill, and Peter M. Shane. 1992. Administrative Law: The American Public Law System; Cases and Materials. 3d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West.