The phrase "adversarial proceedings" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in legal contexts to refer to a process where two parties present opposing arguments or evidence in a dispute.
Example: "The court will conduct adversarial proceedings to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to present their case."
Alternatives: "contested proceedings" or "opposing proceedings".
Judge Chin ruled that the privilege was reserved for adversarial proceedings.
"I'm certainly not saying that these are nice hearings, and I am sure that they are not good for anybody because they can result in very adversarial proceedings".
Disciplinary hearings are conducted as adversarial proceedings, with a criminal standard of proof required to convict a doctor of serious professional misconduct.
Sundt analyzed the use of adversarial proceedings, similar to the proposed "red-team/blue-team" exercise, in her ERG Master's thesis, "Adversary Proceedings and Nuclear Policy: The Windscale Inquiry of 1977". In the paper, she concludes that adversarial proceedings have "grave intrinsic problems" and should be avoided in favor of other consensus-developing alternatives.
Indeed, even lawyers who have faced Mr. McLucas in adversarial proceedings -- and there are many -- say few people better embody the integrity that is crucial to being an effective public servant.
In the past, many faculty members were reluctant to charge academic misconduct for fear of subjecting themselves to adversarial proceedings, unfamiliar rules of evidence, phone calls from parents, aggressive lawyers and uncertain outcomes.
The use of expedited removal should be reduced rather than expanded, while some cases should be diverted from the courts to the specialized asylum office or similar non-adversarial proceedings, which are more appropriate for handling many claims to status.
The surveillance court is a different world of secret case law, non-adversarial proceedings, and rulings written by individual judges who rarely meet as a panel.
Perhaps their most fatal flaw was the lack of legal representation for detainees at such hearings, which the Department of Defense curiously labeled "non-adversarial" proceedings.
Inquests are non-adversarial proceedings aimed at investigating the circumstances of a death; the investigation is conducted by the coroner, while the representatives of interested parties can cross-examine witnesses.
Mora's brave dissent derives strength from a clear vision of future consequence: there will be adversarial legal proceedings for detainees; during those proceedings, there will be examinations of the means by which testimony was extracted; during those examinations, Rumsfeld himself will inevitably be called to account for approving those methods.
