{
 "@context": "https://schema.org",
 "@type": "DefinedTerm",
 "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/judicial-review",
 "identifier": "kaal:entity:judicial-review",
 "name": "Judicial review",
 "termCode": "judicial-review",
 "inDefinedTermSet": {
  "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/index.json"
 },
 "author": {
  "@type": "Person",
  "name": "Wulf A. Kaal",
  "identifier": "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0757-275X"
 },
 "dateModified": "2026-07-29",
 "canonicalForm": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/judicial-review.md",
 "sha256": "6631625f945b4fca4d6c053bbbb4467c82c32413b35b225696dcb97c42531d4d",
 "additionalProperty": [
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "status",
   "value": "derived"
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "claim_count",
   "value": 3
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "work_count",
   "value": 3
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "year_span",
   "value": [
    "2010",
    "2016"
   ]
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "non_current_claims",
   "value": 0
  }
 ],
 "subjectOf": [
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1558614-033",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1558614-033",
   "text": "U.S. courts applying the business judgment rule give little or no weight to the overall health of the company or to whether the risk jeopardizes the company's very existence, so managers are permitted to incur most of the risks they wish to incur.",
   "abstract": "courts applying the business judgment rule in the United States give little or no consideration to the overall health of the company or even whether the risk is jeopardizing the company's very existence",
   "citation": "Painter and Kaal, Initial Reflections on an Evolving Standard Constraints on Risk Taking by Directors and Officers in (2010). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1558614",
   "datePublished": "2010",
   "claim_type": "failure",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": true,
   "scope_conditions": [],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "e898211630f4116879329d6de8397523dca5b066864147421aa5cbc7429dc83b",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/kaal-2013-acomparativeperspectiveo-017",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:kaal-2013-acomparativeperspectiveo-017",
   "text": "Despite the limits of the comparison, had In re Citigroup and Disney been decided in Germany the allocation of liability would have been different, because German courts are generally more willing than Delaware courts to second-guess directors' decisions.",
   "abstract": "it seems difficult to escape the conclusion that had the two American cases, In re Citigroup and Disney, been decided in Germany, the liability allocation would have been different. German courts generally seem more willing to second-guess directors' decisions than Delaware courts.",
   "citation": "Kaal, A Comparative Perspective on the Limitations of the Duty of Oversight – A Comment on Lisa Fairfax (2013)",
   "datePublished": "2013",
   "claim_type": "empirical",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": false,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "cases involving extreme facts at the cusp of culpable conduct"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "ac5c955fe01209c54c78c4575c0b8bf570e5f1259c3f855510697cf51a32e59a",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2714974-006",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:2714974-006",
   "text": "The SEC's 2004 hedge fund adviser registration rule failed in court because the agency lacked authority to define the term client, which the Investment Advisers Act had not otherwise defined, and the D.C. Circuit in Goldstein vacated the rule as arbitrary rulemaking.",
   "abstract": "Because the term \"client\" had not otherwise been defined in the Investment Advisers Act, the SEC had no authority to determine the meaning of the term.",
   "citation": "Kaal and Oesterle, The History of Hedge Fund Regulation in the United States (2016). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2714974",
   "datePublished": "2016",
   "claim_type": "failure",
   "confidence": "evidenced",
   "is_failure_mode": true,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "applies to rulemaking under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7764601d3ed5bb056b58949e8411eff9dfb9855f143719062030c980c5fa801b",
   "status": "current"
  }
 ],
 "description": "3 claims in the published works of Wulf A. Kaal carry the concept tag 'judicial-review'. Derived node: a roster, not an adjudicated definition."
}