Arbitrary And Capricious Standard Of Review

3,214 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 87 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Moss Amber MFG. Co.
  264 F.2d 107· 9th Cir.· 1959-02-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's determination of an appropriate bargaining unit was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by substantial evidence, thus the respondent's refusal to bargain constituted an unfair labor practice.
• Seaton v. The Tex. Co.
  256 F.2d 718· D.C. Cir.· 1958-05-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Secretary's action in denying a lease preference was not arbitrary and had a rational basis, upholding the statutory procedures.
• Green v. Baughman
  243 F.2d 610· D.C. Cir.· 1957-01-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that all procedural requirements for the discharge of a government employee were met, and courts will not review the merits of such discharges.
• Linens v. Bowles
  144 F.2d 874· Emer. Ct. App.· 1944-09-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a complainant's challenge to the validity of a price regulation, even if not precisely articulated, is cognizable by the court, and that statutory definitions supersede common usage.
• Capitol Foundry Co. v. Bowles
  146 F.2d 855· Emer. Ct. App.· 1944-09-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Administrator's denial of the complainant's application for adjustment was not arbitrary or capricious, as it was based on a reasonable consideration of all pertinent factors and a statistically sound calculation of the industry's prewar profit margin.
• World Fuel Corp. v. Geithner
  568 F.3d 1345· 11th Cir.· 2009-05-28 ·cited 17×
  World Fuel Corporation sought a license from OFAC to access blocked assets of a Peruvian airline debtor, but OFAC denied the request based on presidential leverage and creditor protection factors. The district court remanded for reconsideration under the proper legal standard der
• Cronin v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  919 F.2d 439· 7th Cir.· 1990-11-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Forest Service's decision to authorize group selection logging was permissible under the existing management plan and did not require a new environmental impact statement.
• Heidgerd v. Olin Corp.
  906 F.2d 903· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-26 ·cited 17×
  The court held that where an employer's plan summary booklet conflicts with the official plan document, the summary booklet controls, especially when the official plan was not properly filed or distributed as required by ERISA. The court also affirmed that a de novo standard of r
• Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe OF Indians v. United States Dep't OF The Navy
  898 F.2d 1410· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-19 ·cited 17×
  The Navy's outlease program did not violate the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), nor did it breach fiduciary duties to the Tribe, as its reliance on FWS opinions was not arbitrary and capricious and its actions did not jeopardize the c
• Therese Johnson and David Johnson v. Dist. 2 Marine Eng'rs Beneficial Association-Associated Mar. Officers
  857 F.2d 514· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-11 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the denial of benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, state law claims were preempted by ERISA, and extra-contractual damages were not available under ERISA.
• Simmons v. Diamond Shamrock Corp.
  844 F.2d 517· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-12 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) governed the separation pay policy, preempting state law claims, and that the employer's interpretation of the policy was not arbitrary or capricious.
• Lester Grinspoon, M.D. v. Drug Enforcement Administration
  828 F.2d 881· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Administrator's interpretation of 'currently accepted medical use' and 'accepted safety for use' under the CSA to mean FDA approval for interstate marketing was contrary to congressional intent.
• Jarrett E. Woods, Jr. v. Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd.
  826 F.2d 1400· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-27 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Bank Board's appointment of FSLIC as receiver for Western Savings was supported by the administrative record and reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard, not de novo.
• Park Cnty. Res. Council, Inc. v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  817 F.2d 609· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-17 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Mineral Lands Leasing Act's statute of limitations does not apply to NEPA challenges and that the district court abused its discretion in applying the laches defense and the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine to bar the plaintiffs' claim regard
• Chilton v. Savannah Foods & Indus., Inc.
  814 F.2d 620· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-13 ·cited 17×
  The court held that removal of ERISA actions to federal court is permissible even when state courts have concurrent jurisdiction, and that the denial of a jury trial and the exclusion from employee benefit plans were not arbitrary or capricious.
• Cuthbert v. Sec'y, Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  784 F.2d 1157· 4th Cir.· 1985-11-29 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction because there was no colorable claim that the Secretary's calculation of the attorney's fee violated federal law.
• Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  773 F.2d 1561· 11th Cir.· 1985-10-18 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) has the statutory authority to generally reduce the notice period for motor carrier tariff filings upon finding 'cause,' and that the ICC's finding of cause based on increased competition and the need for carrier flexib
• Steele v. Nat'l Firearms ACT Branch
  755 F.2d 1410· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the record lacked sufficient factual development to determine standing, requiring a remand to the district court.
• Nat'l Org. for Women v. Soc. Sec. Admin. OF the Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  736 F.2d 727· D.C. Cir.· 1984-05-25 ·cited 17×
  The court held that de novo review by the district court was inappropriate for an information submitter challenging an agency's decision to disclose records, and that the preliminary injunction was properly granted based on the administrative record.
• ITT World Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  699 F.2d 1219· D.C. Cir.· 1983-02-01 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing ITT's ultra vires claim for lack of standing and ripeness, and that subject matter jurisdiction was proper. It also modified the FOIA disclosure order, reversing it in part and affirming it in part.
• Sys. Dev. Corp. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  423 So. 2d 433· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-11-29 ·cited 17×
  The court affirmed the agency's award of a contract, finding that the proposed enhancements did not constitute material irregularities and that the agency acted within its discretion.
• Home Health Servs. OF THE U. S., Inc. v. Schweiker
  683 F.2d 353· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Provider Reimbursement Review Board's decision limiting Medicare reimbursement for administrator compensation was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.
• Nowicki v. United States
  536 F.2d 1171· 7th Cir.· 1976-06-22 ·cited 17×
  A district court's "trial de novo" review under the Food Stamp Act is limited to determining the validity of the agency's administrative action, not modifying the penalty imposed if it is within statutory limits and not arbitrary or capricious.
• Toohey v. Nitze
  429 F.2d 1332· 9th Cir.· 1970-07-29 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the government complied with administrative procedures and its action was supported by substantial evidence, thus affirming the summary judgment.
• Nor-Am Agric. Prods., Inc. v. Hardin
  435 F.2d 1133· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-15 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Secretary's emergency suspension order was subject to judicial review and was an arbitrary exercise of authority.
• Scott v. Macy
  349 F.2d 182· D.C. Cir.· 1965-06-16 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the appellant was not given adequate notice of the specific 'immoral conduct' used to disqualify him from federal employment.
• Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  987 F.2d 1017· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-12 ·cited 16×
  The court should not reach the issue of the appropriate scope of review for ERISA plan administrator decisions when plans do not vest discretionary powers.
• Wildbur v. Arco Chem. Co.
  974 F.2d 631· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a district court is not confined to the administrative record when reviewing an ERISA plan administrator's decision under an abuse of discretion standard, and that the lower court erred in limiting its review.
• Kreutzer v. A.O. Smith Corp.
  951 F.2d 739· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that employers must adhere to ERISA's procedural requirements, and employees can enforce disclosed plan terms when violations prevent them from knowing their rights.
• Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  919 F.2d 158· D.C. Cir.· 1990-11-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the EPA's regulations governing the closure of hazardous waste facilities were consistent with congressional intent and not arbitrary or capricious. The EPA acted within its statutory authority in promulgating these regulations.
• Marlowe Blake and Pam Blake v. Unionmutual Stock Life INS. Co. OF Am.
  906 F.2d 1525· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-30 ·cited 16×
  Claims for benefits under an ERISA plan are equitable in nature, and thus do not entitle plaintiffs to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, even when reviewed de novo. Postpartum depression, without proof of underlying organic causation, is classified as a mental illness und
• Browning-Ferris Indus. OF S. Jersey, Inc. v. Muszynski
  899 F.2d 151· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 16×
  The court assumed jurisdiction for the purpose of the appeal only, without deciding the jurisdictional questions, and found that BFI's legal and equitable claims must fail on the merits.
• Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. The LTV Corp. & LTV Steel Co., Inc.
  875 F.2d 1008· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that PBGC's decision to restore terminated pension plans was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to adequately consider the competing policies of ERISA, bankruptcy, and labor law, and lacked sufficient support in the administrative record.
• Middlewest Motor Freight Bureau v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  867 F.2d 458· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) has primary jurisdiction to interpret its own motor carrier certificates and that its finding that Matlack's transportation of chemicals was part of a continuous interstate operation was supported by substantial evidenc
• M.M. Winter v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  851 F.2d 1056· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Winona Bridge is not a rail carrier and cannot invoke the trackage rights class exemption.
• Defenders OF Wildlife v. Hodel
  851 F.2d 1035· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution because their alleged injury was too speculative and not redressable by the requested relief.
• Vallejo Gen. Hosp. (now known as Sutter Solano Med. Center) v. Otis Bowen, M.D.
  851 F.2d 229· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Secretary's interpretation of Medicare regulations allowing the use of contractual allocation figures to establish fair market value for asset depreciation basis was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.
• State OF Ark. v. Block
  825 F.2d 1254· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the 0.5% penalty level and county-based reporting unit for mail loss of food stamps were not arbitrary and capricious, but that the Secretary lacked authority to assess interest on penalties owed by a state.
• Am. Cyanamid Co. v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency
  810 F.2d 493· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-20 ·cited 16×
  The EPA may not commence or collect penalties under § 7420 if its Notice of Noncompliance is issued more than four months after a state submits a SIP revision, unless and until the EPA formally rejects that revision.
• CMC Real Est. Corp. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  807 F.2d 1025· D.C. Cir.· 1986-12-23 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the ICC's orders, holding that the agency acted rationally and within its authority in granting exemptions for Iowa Interstate Railroad to operate over abandoned Rock Island lines, and in denying a transition period or labor protective conditions.
• Mayers v. U.S. Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  806 F.2d 995· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-22 ·cited 16×
  The Civil Monetary Penalties and Assessment Act (CMPAA) is constitutional on its face and as applied, and the administrative determination of civil penalties against the Mayers is upheld.
• Yakima Valley Cablevision, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & the United States
  794 F.2d 737· D.C. Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the FCC's decision to retroactively change its policy and refuse to resolve franchise fee disputes arising before the Cable Act was arbitrary and capricious due to a lack of reasoned explanation. However, the court deferred ruling on the Cable Act issues to a
• In re United States Parole Comm'n
  793 F.2d 338· D.C. Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 16×
  The District Court did not err in asserting jurisdiction over Pearson's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying the Commission's motion to transfer the case.
• Colo. Interstate GAS Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  791 F.2d 803· 10th Cir.· 1986-05-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acted within its authority in ordering retroactive modification of a minimum commodity bill and in rejecting a non-compliant filing, as the minimum bill was integral to the rate structure and the Commission's interpreta
• Carlin Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  787 F.2d 846· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-11 ·cited 16×
  The FCC's access code regulation is arbitrary and capricious as applied to New York Telephone Company's one-way mass announcement service system, rendering it infeasible and unconstitutional for providers on that system.
• Cellular Mobile Sys. OF Pa., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  782 F.2d 182· D.C. Cir.· 1985-12-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the FCC's expedited procedures, comparative criteria, and ultimate license award were lawful, not arbitrary, and supported by substantial evidence.
• Fairview Twp. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  773 F.2d 517· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the citizens' suit as seeking money damages, but that the suit must be dismissed because the EPA Administrator was not under a nondiscretionary duty to review the application within 45 days. However, the district court ha
• Panhandle Coop. Ass'n v. Env't Prot. Agency
  771 F.2d 1149· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the EPA's penalty assessment, finding it supported by substantial evidence and not an abuse of discretion, and rejected the argument that a two-and-a-half-year delay in the administrative appeal violated statutory or regulatory requirements.
• N. Am. Telecomms. Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  772 F.2d 1282· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the FCC's exceptions to the separate-subsidiary rule, including joint billing, single-line phone installation, and dial-tone referral, were permissible exercises of the Commission's discretion, despite potential competitive disadvantages for independent provid
• Vista Hill Found., Inc. v. Heckler
  767 F.2d 556· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Provider Reimbursement Review Board's (PRRB) reasons for denying reimbursement were not supported by substantial evidence or were legally incorrect. However, the concurring opinion argues the majority improperly went beyond its scope of review.