Abuse Of Agency Discretion

13 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Tennille G. Sheehan v. Secretary OF Health
  593 F.2d 323· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the denial of an extension of time to appeal an administrative law judge's decision because the claimant failed to exhaust administrative remedies and the Secretary did not waive this requirement.
• State OF Conn. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  696 F.2d 147· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the EPA's approval of New York's SIP revision allowing LILCO to burn higher sulfur fuel was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, as the agency reasonably interpreted and applied the Clean Air Act's provisions regarding interstate pollution.
• Residential Plaza AT Blue Lagoon, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin.
  891 So. 2d 604· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-01-24 ·cited 8×
  RPBL, an assisted living facility holding an extended congregate care (ECC) license, appealed AHCA's denial of its ECC license renewal based on a Class II violation from a 2001 survey. The court reversed, holding that the statute did not mandate automatic denial of ECC renewal fo
• Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund & Fla. Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Levy
  656 So. 2d 1359· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-06-27 ·cited 8×
  The Board of Trustees and Department of Environmental Protection appealed a hearing officer's decision voiding a rule limiting residential dock extensions to 500 feet in aquatic preserves as arbitrary. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Trustees provided a rational ba
• Dudley v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  816 F.2d 792· 1st Cir.· 1987-02-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the Secretary's finding that the claimant was not disabled and that the denial of reopening a prior claim was not subject to judicial review.
• Gosnell v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  703 F.2d 216· 6th Cir.· 1983-03-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Secretary's refusal to reopen prior disability benefit applications was not a denial of due process, but shifting the burden of producing records to the claimant is an impermissible due process violation.
• Fla. Wildlife Fed'n v. Goldschmidt
  506 F. Supp. 350· S.D. Fla.· 1981-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding they failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits or suffering irreparable injury.
• Onwubiko v. United States
  969 F.2d 1392· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in treating pro se filings as a Rule 41(e) motion after conviction and that the defendant stated claims for return of property and challenge to forfeiture.
• Life Care Ctrs. OF Am., Inc. v. Health Care & Ret. Corp. OF Am. & Agency for Health Care Admin.
  692 So. 2d 243· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-04-23 ·cited 2×
  Life Care Centers of America appealed the denial of its Certificate of Need (CON) application for a nursing home, arguing the agency's decision was contrary to the record evidence and based on invalid legal conclusions. The court affirmed the agency's approval of a competing appl
• CED Cap. Holdings, III, Ltd. v. Fla. Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs
  646 So. 2d 846· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-12-23 ·cited 2×
  The court reversed the agency's denial of a low-income housing tax credit application and remanded for a formal administrative hearing, treating the agency's motion for remand as a confession of error and awarding attorney's fees for the agency's gross abuse of discretion.
• Q.H. c/o AMY Hill v. Sunshine State Health Plan, Inc.
  307 So. 3d 1· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-10-07 ·cited 1×
  The AHCA's prior authorization criteria for growth hormone treatment cannot be applied rigidly as the sole measure of medical necessity under EPSDT; instead, EPSDT requires individualized review of each child's particular needs and circumstances, taking into account the treating
• Allison v. Madigan
  951 F.2d 869· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-06
  The court held that the Farmers Home Administration's (FmHA) new administrative offset regulations sufficiently cured any due process or statutory violations caused by the old regulations, and the guidelines provided to county supervisors were not arbitrary or capricious.
• Md. Dep't OF Human Res. v. Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  762 F.2d 406· 4th Cir.· 1985-05-23
  The court held that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acted within its statutory authority and was not arbitrary in requiring the state to bear the financial responsibility for erroneous AFDC payments.