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

• Lead Indus. Ass'n, Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  647 F.2d 1130· D.C. Cir.· 1980-06-27 ·cited 90×
  The court affirmed the EPA's promulgation of national ambient air quality standards for lead, finding the Administrator acted within his statutory authority and that the rulemaking procedures were not infirm.
• The Avoyelles Sportsmen's League, Inc. v. Marsh
  715 F.2d 897· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-26 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the district court erred by conducting a de novo review of the EPA's wetlands determination instead of applying the arbitrary and capricious standard to the administrative record. The court affirmed the requirement for permits for landclearing activities.
• Porter v. Califano
  592 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-26 ·cited 88×
  The court concurs with the result but emphasizes the need for an evidentiary hearing for government employees facing discharge or suspension.
• Kosty v. Lewis
  319 F.2d 744· D.C. Cir.· 1963-05-23 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund acted arbitrarily and capriciously by changing pension eligibility requirements without notice, divesting a member of his accrued pension rights.
• Ass'n of Nat'l Advertisers, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  627 F.2d 1151· D.C. Cir.· 1979-12-27 ·cited 87×
  The court held that a Commissioner can be disqualified for bias in rulemaking only upon a showing of an unalterably closed mind, but the dissenting judge argued for a lower standard of preponderance of evidence for substantial bias.
• Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Callaway
  524 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1975-09-09 ·cited 87×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's decision regarding the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and reverse the majority's grant of injunctive relief.
• Bruch v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. & Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Ret. Plan for Salaried Emps. & Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Stock Purchase & Sav. Plan
  828 F.2d 134· 3d Cir.· 1987-08-31 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the arbitrary and capricious standard of review is inappropriate for claims concerning an unfunded plan where the employer is the administrator and stands to profit from denying benefits; such claims should be reviewed de novo. The court also held that former
• Holland v. Burlington Indus., Inc.
  772 F.2d 1140· 4th Cir.· 1985-09-03 ·cited 86×
  A severance pay policy is an employee welfare benefit plan covered by ERISA, and ERISA preempts state law claims related to such plans. The denial of severance pay was not arbitrary and capricious.
• Off. OF Commc'n OF the United Church OF Christ v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  707 F.2d 1413· D.C. Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 86×
• Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Costle
  657 F.2d 275· D.C. Cir.· 1981-04-21 ·cited 85×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the EPA acted reasonably in approving state water quality standards for salinity and that the district court properly limited review to the administrative record.
• Denis Hanly v. Mitchell
  460 F.2d 640· 2d Cir.· 1972-05-17 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the General Services Administration (GSA) failed to adequately consider the environmental impact of the proposed jail, requiring further review under NEPA, but affirmed the dismissal of claims regarding the office building.
• Struble v. NEW Jersey Brewery Emps'. Welf. Tr. Fund
  732 F.2d 325· 3d Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the "then current" collective bargaining agreement referred to the agreement in effect at the time payment was due, not at the time of retirement, thus affirming summary judgment for employers on Count I. For Count IV, the court held that the "arbitrary and ca
• Laurence G. Russell v. Nat'l Mediation Bd.
  775 F.2d 1284· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-23 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the amended Equal Access to Justice Act applies to cases pending at the time of its enactment, and that the Board's underlying action was not substantially justified, entitling the plaintiff to attorney fees for all time spent contesting the merits.
• Cape MAY Greene, Inc. v. Warren
  698 F.2d 179· 3d Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the EPA acted arbitrarily in imposing a sewer hookup restriction on floodplain development that defied state and local land use regulations, as Congress has encouraged state and local regulation of coastal areas.
• Cities Serv. Co. & Cities Serv. Oil Co. v. Fed. Energy Admin. & Frank G. Zarb
  529 F.2d 1016· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Administration's (FEA) Old Oil Entitlements Program was a valid exercise of authority under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 and was not unconstitutional, arbitrary, or capricious.
• Chuck Stone v. Federal Cummunications Commissions
  466 F.2d 316· D.C. Cir.· 1972-06-30 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the FCC reasonably found no substantial and material questions of fact, allowing renewal of WMAL-TV's license without a hearing.
• Danti v. Lewis
  312 F.2d 345· D.C. Cir.· 1962-11-20 ·cited 80×
  The court held that it would not substitute its discretion for that of the Trustees regarding pension eligibility, as long as the Trustees acted rationally and in good faith.
• Robesky v. Qantas Empire Airways Ltd.
  573 F.2d 1082· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-13 ·cited 79×
  The court should not define 'arbitrary' using tort law culpability standards, but rather by whether the union abused its discretion in processing grievances.
• Gen. Tel. Co. OF the Sw. v. United States & Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  449 F.2d 846· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-14 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had statutory authority to promulgate rules restricting telephone companies from furnishing CATV service in their areas, and that reliance on antitrust concepts was permissible in determining public convenience and n
• Shelton v. City OF Coll. Station
  780 F.2d 475· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-06 ·cited 78×
• Miles v. The NEW York State Teamsters Conf. Pension & Ret. Fund Emp. Pension Benefit Plan
  698 F.2d 593· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-20 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the pension plan's Board of Trustees' interpretation of the 'new group' rule was rational and not arbitrary or capricious, reversing the lower court's decision.
• Asarco, Inc. v. U. S. Env't Prot. Agency
  616 F.2d 1153· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-14 ·cited 78×
  The court held that while the district court erred in considering evidence outside the administrative record for substantive review, the appellate court could review the administrative record itself to determine if the EPA's order was arbitrary and capricious.
• Langevin v. Chenango Court, Inc.
  447 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 78×
  The court held that tenants in FHA-assisted housing projects are entitled to a fair administrative hearing before rent increases are approved, as a matter of due process.
• Rosen v. Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Union OF Phila.
  637 F.2d 592· 3d Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the pension fund trustees had a fiduciary duty to notify the applicant of his employer's failure to contribute and to take action against the employer, and that their failure to do so, along with the prior acceptance of the applicant's personal payment of arre
• Nat'l Ass'n FOR the Advancement OF Colored People v. The Med. Ctr., Inc.
  599 F.2d 1247· 3d Cir.· 1979-06-04 ·cited 77×
  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 create private rights of action for individuals seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against discriminatory practices in federally funded programs.
• Jung v. FMC Corp.
  755 F.2d 708· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-12 ·cited 76×
  The court held that FMC's interpretation of its severance pay policy, denying benefits upon the sale of a division where employees were transferred to the buyer with comparable employment and benefits, was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious under ERISA.
• Ass'n OF Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Bd. OF Governors OF the Fed. Reserve Sys.
  745 F.2d 677· D.C. Cir.· 1984-10-02 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the substantial evidence standard of review under 12 U.S.C. § 1848 is substantively identical to the arbitrary and capricious standard under the APA, and that the Board of Governors did not err in applying a 'data test' to determine if data processing activiti
• Library OF Congress v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.
  699 F.2d 1280· D.C. Cir.· 1983-02-25 ·cited 76×·via Standard Of Review For Agency Action (Arbitrary, Capricious, Abuse Of Discretion)
  The court held that the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) correctly determined that union bargaining proposals concerning employee working conditions, even if requiring recommendations to another agency with exclusive control, are within the scope of the Library of Congres
• Riley v. Meba Pension Tr.
  570 F.2d 406· 2d Cir.· 1977-12-15 ·cited 76×
  The court held that while the trustees' interpretation of the plan was within their authority, the suspension of benefits for government employment violated ERISA's nonforfeiture provisions, but only from the effective date of those provisions.
• Burroughs v. Bd. OF Trs. OF the Pension Tr. Fund FOR Operating Eng'rs
  542 F.2d 1128· 9th Cir.· 1976-10-04 ·cited 74×
  The court held that applying a break-in-employment rule retroactively without notice to deny pension benefits was arbitrary and capricious, but affirmed the denial of attorneys' fees due to the lack of an identifiable class of beneficiaries.
• Monroe Cnty. Conservation Council, Inc. v. Volpe
  472 F.2d 693· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-18 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the Secretary of Transportation cannot approve federal funding for the highway project because it fails to comply with NEPA, parkland protection statutes, hearing requirements, and bridge permit regulations.
• Dennard v. The Richards Grp., Inc.
  681 F.2d 306· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-26 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the district court erred by not first determining the correct interpretation of the plan and then assessing whether the Committee acted arbitrarily and capriciously, especially given potential factual issues regarding good faith and incomplete discovery.
• Ruetta Paris v. Profit Sharing Plan FOR Emps. OF Howard B. Wolf, Inc.
  637 F.2d 357· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-17 ·cited 73×·via Arbitrary And Capricious Standard Of Review For Trustee Decisions
  The court held that it had jurisdiction because the cause of action accrued in 1975 when benefits were denied, and affirmed the district court's denial of benefits as the trustee's decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Ruckelshaus
  742 F.2d 1561· D.C. Cir.· 1984-09-07 ·cited 72×
  The EPA's rule requiring manufacturers to repair all members of a recall class, regardless of their age or mileage at the time of repair, is a valid interpretative rule supported by the Clean Air Act.
• Brown v. Lundgren
  528 F.2d 1050· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-18 ·cited 72×
  A federal court's judicial review of a parole release decision is narrowly limited, and habeas corpus is not available unless the prisoner demonstrates that the parole board's action is so unlawful as to make his custody illegal.
• E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train
  541 F.2d 1018· 4th Cir.· 1976-03-10 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the Administrator has the authority to promulgate regulations establishing effluent limitations for existing sources under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, and that these regulations are presumptively applicable to permit application
• Rase v. United States
  129 F.2d 204· 6th Cir.· 1942-06-29 ·cited 72×
  A registrant's classification by a draft board is final and not subject to judicial review unless the hearing was unfair or the decision was arbitrary and capricious.
• Ne. Dep't Ilgwu Health & Welf. Fund & Sol Hoffman v. Teamsters Local Union NO. 229 Welf. Fund
  764 F.2d 147· 3d Cir.· 1985-05-23 ·cited 70×
  Federal jurisdiction existed over all aspects of the controversy under ERISA's express grant, and the court should not be deterred by procedural formalities.
• Natural Res. Def. Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & United States
  666 F.2d 595· D.C. Cir.· 1981-10-01 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the petitioner's challenge to the regulations was untimely and that the agency's denial of the rescission request was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
• Sheehan v. Army & AIR Force Exch. Serv.
  619 F.2d 1132· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-27 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over Sheehan's wrongful discharge claim against AAFES, based on the Tucker Act for monetary relief and federal question jurisdiction combined with the Administrative Procedure Act for nonmonetary relief.
• CPC Int'l Inc. v. Train
  515 F.2d 1032· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-05 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacks the statutory authority under Section 301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 to promulgate effluent limitations for existing sources by regulation; such limitations are to be establishe
• Meehan v. Macy
  425 F.2d 472· D.C. Cir.· 1969-05-12 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the dismissal of a government employee for conduct unbecoming an officer, particularly when it involved exploiting confidential information during a sensitive diplomatic crisis, was distinguishable from the First Amendment protections afforded to a teacher in
• Columbia Basin Land Prot. Ass'n v. Schlesinger
  643 F.2d 585· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-20 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the majority opinion erred in deciding moot issues and in its interpretation of NEPA and FLPMA.
• AIR Line Pilots Ass'n v. Elwood R. Quesada
  276 F.2d 892· 2d Cir.· 1960-04-21 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the FAA Administrator's regulation setting a maximum age of sixty for pilots was a valid exercise of rulemaking authority and did not require individual adjudicatory hearings.
• Alfaro Motors, Inc. v. Hon. Benjamin Ward
  814 F.2d 883· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-25 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the civil rights complaint, finding that claims against individual defendants were fatally defective and claims against the city failed to state a claim under § 1983.
• Am. Petroleum Inst. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  540 F.2d 1023· 10th Cir.· 1976-08-11 ·cited 68×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
  The court held that the Administrator had the authority to promulgate effluent limitations for existing sources and that the use of single numbers in these regulations was permissible. The 1977 variance provisions were also upheld as a valid exercise of rulemaking authority.
• Minn. Pub. Interest Research Grp. v. Butz
  498 F.2d 1314· 8th Cir.· 1974-06-10 ·cited 68×
  The dissent argues that routine extensions of logging contracts are not "major" federal actions significantly affecting the environment, and thus do not require an environmental impact statement under NEPA.
• Silva v. Lynn
  482 F.2d 1282· 1st Cir.· 1973-07-05 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was facially insufficient because it failed to adequately discuss environmental problems, alternatives, and the reasoning behind the chosen plan, violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
• Polcover v. Secretary OF the Treasury
  477 F.2d 1223· D.C. Cir.· 1973-04-04 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the agency's removal of the appellant was supported by substantial evidence and that no procedural errors occurred.
• Carter Mountain Transmission Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  321 F.2d 359· D.C. Cir.· 1963-05-23 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the FCC's denial of a common carrier radio license was a valid exercise of its authority, not censorship, and was supported by substantial evidence.