-
882 F.2d 514·
Temp. Emer. Ct. App.·
1989-06-22
·cited 2×
The court held that the Department of Energy (DOE) could refuse to accept refund applications submitted by class counsel on behalf of a Rule 23 class in a section 209 proceeding, as this would improperly commingle public and private enforcement actions.
-
822 F.2d 9·
2d Cir.·
1987-06-26
·cited 2×
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review nonfinal orders and denied the petition for review of the final orders before it.
-
723 F.2d 877·
Fed. Cir.·
1983-10-28
·cited 2×
The court held that the Secretary's denial of promotion was not arbitrary or capricious, and that the term 'grade' in retirement statutes refers to 'officer grade,' not 'pay grade.'
-
696 F.2d 179·
2d Cir.·
1982-12-01
·cited 2×
The court held that the EPA's approval of Connecticut's Energy Trade Program revision to its State Implementation Plan was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
-
658 F.2d 1349·
9th Cir.·
1981-10-13
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court erred in reversing the Board of Land Appeals' decision, finding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reinstatement of the oil and gas leases.
-
619 F.2d 679·
7th Cir.·
1980-04-23
·cited 2×
The court held that the Comptroller's decision to authorize a branch bank facility adjacent to Rensselaer, Indiana, was arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law because the site was not located 'in a town' as required by Indiana law.
-
481 F.2d 610·
9th Cir.·
1973-07-16
·cited 2×
The court held that the Secretary of the Interior's interpretation of the tribal constitution's future membership provisions was not arbitrary or capricious and thus affirmed the district court's decision.
-
528 F. Supp. 2d 1317·
S.D. Fla.·
2007-12-21
·cited 1×
The court granted summary judgment for the Federal Defendants, finding the Fish and Wildlife Service's 2006 Biological Opinion did not violate the Endangered Species Act or the Administrative Procedure Act.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-11-01
The court held that the amended biological opinion was properly before the court and that the agency's actions were not arbitrary or capricious, thus granting summary judgment for the defendants.
-
11th Cir.·
2022-08-23
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it issued marketing denial orders for flavored electronic nicotine-delivery system products without considering the tobacco companies' proposed marketing and sales-access-restriction p
-
988 F.2d 1254·
D.C. Cir.·
1993-04-02
The court held that the FCC's methodology for determining the rate of return for interstate telephone services, using a classic Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model applied to an original cost rate base, was not arbitrary, capricious, or confiscatory.
-
987 F.2d 821·
D.C. Cir.·
1993-03-12
The court affirmed the district court's judgment because the Department of Education's interpretation of the Higher Education Act was not unambiguously expressed and was inconsistent with prior agency practice.
-
851 F.2d 444·
D.C. Cir.·
1988-07-15
The court held that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) extension of the 'one-car credit' provision was not arbitrary or capricious, as it was supported by the rulemaking record and considered alternatives.
-
841 F.2d 1162·
D.C. Cir.·
1988-03-22
The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission's decision to exempt a railroad's abandonment of a track segment from full regulatory review was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
-
820 F.2d 1332·
D.C. Cir.·
1987-06-30
The court held that the FCC's dismissal of Royce's application was not arbitrary or capricious, as Royce failed to establish good cause for amendments and its application lacked crucial engineering data.
-
649 F.2d 814·
10th Cir.·
1981-05-27
The court held that the Secretary of the Interior's narrow interpretation of the 'justifiable' and 'reasonable diligence' standards for lease reinstatement is not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
-
587 F.2d 1248·
D.C. Cir.·
1978-09-20
The court held that the FCC's decision to defer regulation of broadcaster exclusivity practices in favor of market forces and antitrust enforcement was a rational exercise of its discretion.