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

• Wash. Mut. Sav. Bank & Grays Harbor Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  482 F.2d 459· 9th Cir.· 1973-07-12 ·cited 6×
  The FDIC does not have discretionary power under the Bank Merger Act of 1966 to deny a merger application based on a competitive standard more stringent than the antitrust laws.
• Joul Small v. The United States
  470 F.2d 1020· Ct. Cl.· 1972-12-12 ·cited 6×
• Embrey v. Hampton
  470 F.2d 146· 4th Cir.· 1972-07-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Embrey's discharge from the Post Office was lawful and not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, despite mitigating circumstances.
• Pitts v. Camp
  463 F.2d 632· 4th Cir.· 1972-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Comptroller's denial of a bank charter was unacceptable because the agency failed to state the grounds for its decision, hindering judicial review.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hardy-Herpolsheimer Div. OF Allied Stores OF Mich., Inc.
  453 F.2d 877· 6th Cir.· 1972-01-21 ·cited 6×
  The court enforced the Board's bargaining order, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's resolution of ballot challenges.
• The Church OF Scientology OF Cal. v. Elliot Richardson
  437 F.2d 214· 9th Cir.· 1971-01-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the E-meter is a misbranded device subject to import refusal under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and that its religious use does not exempt it from these regulations or violate First Amendment rights.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lowell Corrugated Container Corp.
  431 F.2d 1196· 1st Cir.· 1970-09-30 ·cited 6×
  The court enforced the Board's order, finding that the employer's objections to the election notice and ballot were insufficient to overturn the certification.
• United States v. Moore
  427 F.2d 1020· 10th Cir.· 1970-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court abused its discretion by issuing a protective order that improperly interfered with the FAA's administrative disciplinary actions against its employees, violating the principle of separation of powers.
• Reinoehl v. Hershey
  426 F.2d 815· 9th Cir.· 1970-05-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Selective Service Regulation's fee for file copies is authorized by statute and does not violate due process or equal protection.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Harry T. Campbell Sons' Corp.
  407 F.2d 969· 4th Cir.· 1969-02-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Board's designation of a bargaining unit for calcite employees was supported by substantial evidence and within its discretion, and that the employer's other contentions were without merit.
• D. Q. (Bill) Couch v. Udall
  404 F.2d 97· 10th Cir.· 1968-12-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Secretary's refusal to remove restrictions on allotted Indian land was not arbitrary or capricious, and affirmed the decision.
• Deutsch v. United States Atomic Energy Comm'n & United States
  401 F.2d 404· D.C. Cir.· 1968-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Atomic Energy Commission's denial of an award was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by substantial evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. ST. Louis Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union NO. 6, Inc.
  385 F.2d 956· 8th Cir.· 1967-11-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's award of disputed work to the Typographers union was not arbitrary or capricious and is therefore enforceable.
• Meredith Broad. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  365 F.2d 912· D.C. Cir.· 1966-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the FCC's interim policy requiring hearings for certain television station acquisitions in top markets is procedural, not substantive, and thus not subject to challenge as arbitrary or unlawful at this stage.
• Norfolk Dredging Co. v. The United States
  360 F.2d 619· Ct. Cl.· 1966-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's use of a floating pipeline did not constitute a changed condition under the contract, as the specifications allowed for flexibility in placement methods and did not prohibit such a device. The court also found that the Board of Contract Appeals
• Walters v. The United States
  358 F.2d 957· Ct. Cl.· 1966-04-15 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Petiach
  357 F.2d 171· 7th Cir.· 1966-02-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the classification made by the Local Board had a basis in fact and the Board did not act arbitrarily in denying the defendant's claim to a ministerial exemption.
• Fla. Gulfcoast Broadcasters, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  352 F.2d 726· D.C. Cir.· 1965-10-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that issues not raised before the FCC are not properly before the reviewing court, and the FCC's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.
• Silva v. Harlan B. Carter
  326 F.2d 315· 9th Cir.· 1963-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility was not arbitrary or capricious, even without an express ruling on all statutory eligibility requirements, and that consideration of post-hearing events was permissible.
• Attilio Zupicich v. Esperdy
  319 F.2d 773· 2d Cir.· 1963-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Attorney General's delegate's finding that the alien would not be subject to physical persecution was not arbitrary or capricious.
• William N. Feinstein & Co., Inc. v. United States & The Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  317 F.2d 509· 2d Cir.· 1963-05-21 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision upholding the Interstate Commerce Commission's determination that unloading charges for onions at Pier 17 were not unlawful.
• Sayger v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  312 F.2d 352· D.C. Cir.· 1962-12-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Commission's denial of the broadcast station application was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.
• Aquino v. Tobriner
  298 F.2d 674· D.C. Cir.· 1961-12-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Zoning Commission did not abuse its discretion in adopting zoning regulations without additional notice beyond newspaper publication, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate arbitrary zoning action or a vested right.
• THE Price Broadcasters, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  295 F.2d 166· D.C. Cir.· 1961-08-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Commission's decision to grant a construction permit to WGET over other applicants was supported by substantial evidence and within its discretion.
• Courtaulds (Alabama) Inc. v. Dixon
  294 F.2d 899· D.C. Cir.· 1961-04-27 ·cited 6×
  The Federal Trade Commission's rule defining rayon as a manufactured fiber composed of regenerated cellulose, even if cross-linked, was not arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Convair Pomona-a Division of Convair
  286 F.2d 691· 9th Cir.· 1961-02-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's determination of an appropriate bargaining unit was arbitrary and capricious, denying enforcement of its order.
• Frano Batistic v. Alva L. Pilliod
  286 F.2d 268· 7th Cir.· 1961-01-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the administrative discretion was not exercised arbitrarily and capriciously, and the plaintiff received procedural due process.
• The Jacksonville Journal Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  246 F.2d 699· D.C. Cir.· 1957-05-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the FCC's refusal to stay or condition a VHF license grant in Jacksonville was not arbitrary or capricious, considering the public interest in prompt service.
• Hawley v. Brownell
  215 F.2d 36· D.C. Cir.· 1954-04-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations and that the denial of the claim under Section 32 was not arbitrary or capricious.
• Berchem v. Reconstr. Fin. Corp.
  191 F.2d 922· Emer. Ct. App.· 1951-10-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the respondent's action in invalidating the complainant's untimely subsidy claims was in accordance with regulations and not arbitrary or capricious, as the complainant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay or undue hardship.
• Reconstr. Fin. Corp. v. Lightsey
  185 F.2d 167· 4th Cir.· 1950-11-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the Housing Expediter, as Lightsey failed to exhaust available administrative remedies.
• Mason v. Woods
  172 F.2d 857· Emer. Ct. App.· 1949-02-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the rent reductions were properly made retroactive to the date of first renting for apartments where registration statements were filed late or were materially defective, and that the landlord was properly required to make refunds.
• Jacob Goodman & Co., Inc. v. Porter
  156 F.2d 549· Emer. Ct. App.· 1946-07-10 ·cited 6×
  The Administrator's finding that the expenditures did not constitute a major capital improvement justifying a rent increase was not arbitrary or capricious.
• Sprague v. Woll
  124 F.2d 767· 7th Cir.· 1941-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Chicago, Aurora and Elgin Railroad Company is not exempt from the Railway Labor Act because it operates as part of the general steam-railroad system of transportation.
• Richey v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins.
  608 F. Supp. 2d 1306· M.D. Fla.· 2009-04-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendant's decision to discontinue long-term disability benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, as the administrative record supported the conclusion that the plaintiff was capable of performing sedentary or light work.
• Doyle v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. OF Boston
  511 F.3d 1336· 11th Cir.· 2008-01-07 ·cited 5×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the district court erred by applying a "modified" heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review instead of the established "heightened arbitrary and capricious standard." The court
• Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fl v. United States
  420 F. Supp. 2d 1324· S.D. Fla.· 2006-03-14 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Corps' failure to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Alternative 7R was arbitrary and capricious, violating NEPA. However, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Corps acted arbitrarily and capriciou
• Providence v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins.
  357 F. Supp. 2d 1341· M.D. Fla.· 2005-01-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendant's denial of long-term disability benefits was not wrong, as the plaintiff failed to submit contemporaneous medical evidence establishing she was disabled from performing her essential job duties at the time of her resignation.
• Stvartak v. Eastman Kodak Co.
  945 F. Supp. 1532· M.D. Fla.· 1996-11-15 ·cited 5×
  The court found that the plan administrator's denial of long-term disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious, entitling the plaintiff to benefits.
• Park v. First Union Brokerage Servs., Inc.
  926 F. Supp. 1085· M.D. Fla.· 1996-05-29 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the arbitration award would be confirmed because the respondent failed to establish grounds for vacatur, including evident partiality, undue means, or due process violations.
• Cutting v. Jerome Foods
  993 F.2d 1293· 7th Cir.· 1993-05-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the employer's employee benefits plan reasonably interpreted its subrogation clause to disclaim the 'make whole' principle, and thus was not required to reimburse the Cuttings for their medical expenses.
• Caudill v. Blue Cross AND Blue Shield OF North Carolina
  999 F.2d 74· 4th Cir.· 1993-04-29 ·cited 5×
  Federal common law governs disputes arising from FEHBA contracts, displacing state law, and federal jurisdiction exists over such claims.
• Sentara-Hampton Gen. Hosp. v. Louis V. Sullivan, M.D.
  980 F.2d 749· D.C. Cir.· 1992-12-11 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the revised PRM § 226, requiring funds to be contractually committed before borrowing is considered necessary for Medicare reimbursement, is an interpretive rule not requiring notice and comment, and the Administrator's decision disallowing reimbursement was n
• Schurz Commc'ns v. Fed. Commc'ns COMaMISSION & United States
  982 F.2d 1043· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-05 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the FCC's revised financial interest and syndication rules were not adequately justified and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• United States v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  970 F.2d 1132· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court had the authority to review and reject the proposed settlement agreement and did not err in affirming the Independent Administrator's decision imposing a 24-month suspension and denying union payment of attorney's fees.
• State OF NEW York & State of Fla. v. Reilly
  969 F.2d 1147· D.C. Cir.· 1992-07-14 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the EPA adequately supported its decision to abandon the waste separation provision but failed to adequately explain why a ban on lead-acid vehicle battery combustion was not the best demonstrated technology.
• Protect Key W., Inc. v. Cheney
  795 F. Supp. 1552· S.D. Fla.· 1992-03-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Navy's original Environmental Assessment (EA) was inadequate and failed to meet NEPA requirements, and subsequent documentation did not cure this defect.
• Vill. OF LOS Ranchos de Albuquerque v. Marsh
  956 F.2d 970· 10th Cir.· 1992-02-11 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the arbitrary and capricious standard applies to judicial review of an agency's determination that a project does not have significant environmental impact requiring an EIS.
• Block v. Pitney Bowes Inc.
  952 F.2d 1450· D.C. Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 5×
  The court should affirm the district court's result, even if it applied the wrong standard, because the correct standard (abuse of discretion) would yield the same outcome.
• Wells v. United States Steel & Carnegie Pension Fund, Inc.
  950 F.2d 1244· 6th Cir.· 1991-12-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Pension Fund's interpretation of the plan's offset provisions was not arbitrary or capricious, but remanded for findings on equitable recoupment of overpayments.