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

• W. Mich. Telecasters, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  396 F.2d 688· D.C. Cir.· 1968-05-31 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the FCC failed to provide specific findings of fact to support its decision to grant BCU-TV's broadcast application without a hearing.
• Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  385 F.2d 648· D.C. Cir.· 1967-09-12 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) did not err in disallowing certain strike losses and selling expenses, nor in denying accruals for termination indemnities, as these did not meet the statutory "need" criterion for subsidy mail pay under honest, economical, an
• Lakemore Co. v. Brown
  137 F.2d 355· Emer. Ct. App.· 1943-07-15 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the Emergency Price Control Act does not require rent adjustments for individual property tax increases not of general applicability, and the Administrator's denial of such an adjustment was not arbitrary or capricious.
• Sergeant Perry Watkins v. United States Army
  875 F.2d 699· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 45×
  The Army's regulations discriminating against individuals based on homosexual orientation violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Such regulations are not necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest and are therefore constitutionally void. The cour
• Baeder v. Heckler
  768 F.2d 547· 3d Cir.· 1985-07-24 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the "severe impairment" regulation (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)) is inconsistent with the Social Security Act and therefore invalid because it allows denial of benefits without considering vocational factors. However, the court reversed the district court's nation
• Deukmejian v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & United States
  751 F.2d 1287· D.C. Cir.· 1984-12-31 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the agency's decision to exclude consideration of earthquakes in emergency planning lacked a rational basis and sufficient record support, warranting remand.
• Kenai OIL & GAS, Inc. v. The Dep't OF the Interior OF the United States
  671 F.2d 383· 10th Cir.· 1982-02-17 ·cited 45×
  The Superintendent cannot refuse approval of communitization agreements solely because he believes Indian lands would fare better economically outside the proposed unit.
• United States v. Nova Scotia Food Prods. Corp.
  568 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1977-12-15 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the FDA regulation was invalid as applied to appellants because the agency failed to disclose the scientific data and methodology it relied upon, and failed to adequately address the commercial feasibility concerns raised by the industry.
• Usery v. Local Union NO. 639 Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  543 F.2d 369· D.C. Cir.· 1976-08-27 ·cited 45×
  The court held that intervenors have standing to contest the Secretary's certification of a supervised union election and that the District Court erred in denying attorney's fees to intervenors under the common benefit rationale.
• River Rd. Alliance, Inc. v. Corps OF Eng'rs OF United States Army
  764 F.2d 445· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 44×
  The majority opinion, which is being dissented from, appears to have reversed or overturned a lower court's finding that the Corps failed to adequately consider environmental impacts. The dissenting judge argues the Corps did not take a 'hard look' and failed to study alternative
• Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Ret. Program FOR Salaried Emps.
  740 F.2d 454· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-10 ·cited 44×
  Federal courts cannot review the substantive provisions of an ERISA retirement plan for reasonableness, even if the plan was unilaterally established by the employer.
• Watkins Motor Lines, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  641 F.2d 1183· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the ICC's order granting authority from Los Angeles to the Southeast and from five specific southeastern port cities to Los Angeles was supported by substantial evidence under the old law, but the grant of authority from other points in the Southeast to Los An
• Asphalt Roofing Mfrs. Ass'n v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  567 F.2d 994· D.C. Cir.· 1977-10-17 ·cited 44×
  The court held that ICC orders allowing rate increases without suspension or investigation are generally unreviewable, and that challenges to specific commodity hold-downs must be pursued through administrative proceedings. However, the court remanded cases concerning environment
• Overlook Nursing Home, Inc. v. The United States
  556 F.2d 500· Ct. Cl.· 1977-05-18 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the intermediary's auditor lacked authority to bind the government to a settlement amount and that the composition of the administrative board did not violate due process. However, start-up costs are reimbursable and remanded for calculation.
• Laymon Wesley Alsbury v. The United States Postal Serv.
  530 F.2d 852· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-01 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the Postal Service's procedures for suspension and discharge, even with a reduced notice period for criminal suspicion, complied with due process and were not arbitrary or capricious, and that an acquittal in criminal proceedings did not preclude administrativ
• Am. Bible Soc'y v. Winton M. Blount
  446 F.2d 588· 3d Cir.· 1971-07-12 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the suits were not moot because the existence of injunction bonds created a likelihood of future litigation on the same issues, and that the Postmaster General's actions are subject to judicial review for arbitrariness, capriciousness, or unconstitutionality.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
  276 F.2d 865· 7th Cir.· 1960-04-06 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the Board did not err in determining the appropriateness of the craft bargaining unit, conducting the election, or refusing to consider the disaffiliation and no-raiding agreement defenses.
• Sierra Club, Inc. v. Leavitt
  488 F.3d 904· 11th Cir.· 2007-06-08 ·cited 43×
  Sierra Club challenged the EPA's approval of Florida's 2002 impaired waters list under the Clean Water Act section 303(d), alleging the EPA violated its oversight responsibility by approving Florida's failure to identify certain impaired waterbodies and by approving improper deli
• Young v. Standard OIL (Indiana) & Amoco Oil Co.
  849 F.2d 1039· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 43×
  An employer does not owe a fiduciary duty to employees when unilaterally amending or abolishing a non-vested severance benefit plan, and denials of benefits are reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard, even if procedural violations occurred.
• Lowry v. Bankers Life & Cas. Ret. Plan
  871 F.2d 522· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 42×
  The court held that because the plan instruments grant the plan committee discretionary authority to interpret the plan and determine eligibility, an abuse of discretion standard of review applies, not de novo review.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dole
  802 F.2d 474· D.C. Cir.· 1986-09-18 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the challenge to the rescission provision of the passive restraint regulation is not ripe for review, but New York's challenge to the Secretary's decision on alternative standards is ripe and fails on the merits.
• Cardoza v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n & Bd. of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc.
  768 F.2d 1542· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-23 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the notice of appeal, though defective, would be construed to appeal the entire judgment, and that CFTC decisions not to review exchange disciplinary actions are judicially reviewable under the arbitrary and capricious standard, but the CFTC's decision in this
• Airmark Corp. v. Fed. Aviation Admin.
  758 F.2d 685· D.C. Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 42×
  The FAA has the authority to grant exemptions from noise regulations, but its application of exemption criteria was arbitrary and capricious due to inconsistency. The court vacates the agency's actions and remands for consistent proceedings.
• Malhiot v. S. Cal. Retail Clerks Union & Drug Emp'r Pension & Tr. Fund
  735 F.2d 1133· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-19 ·cited 42×·via Arbitrary And Capricious Standard Of Review For Trustee Decisions
  Attorneys are entitled to notice and an opportunity for a hearing before sanctions are imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
• Morse v. Stanley
  732 F.2d 1139· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Trustees did not breach their fiduciary duties under ERISA by denying accelerated distributions to employees joining competitors, nor did they violate ERISA's disclosure requirements.
• Alamo Express, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  673 F.2d 852· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the ICC properly granted Yellow Freight System nationwide contract carrier authority, finding its decision lawful, rational, and supported by substantial evidence under the Motor Carrier Act of 1980.
• Nev. Airlines, Inc. v. Langhorne M. Bond
  622 F.2d 1017· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-08 ·cited 42×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review the Administrator's emergency determination to revoke an air carrier's operating certificate, but the district court correctly dismissed the action for injunctive relief due to exclusive appellate jurisdiction. The court denied th
• Dilley v. Alexander
  603 F.2d 914· D.C. Cir.· 1979-02-26 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Army's violation of 10 U.S.C. § 266 was not rendered meaningless by subsequent 'relook boards' and that a new argument raised in a second petition for rehearing would not be considered.
• Pub. Sys. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  606 F.2d 973· D.C. Cir.· 1979-02-16 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Federal Power Commission (FPC) failed to provide a reasoned basis for its rule permitting comprehensive interperiod tax allocation (CITA) and improperly neglected anticompetitive consequences.
• Major Adolph H. Knehans, Jr. v. Alexander
  566 F.2d 312· D.C. Cir.· 1977-10-03 ·cited 42×
  The court held that an officer discharged after being twice passed over for promotion, despite minor errors in his personnel file, was not entitled to a new review or due process hearing, and had failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• City OF Rochester & Genessee-Finger Lakes Reg'l Planning Bd. v. United States Postal Serv. & Benjamin F. Bailar
  541 F.2d 967· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-03 ·cited 42×
  The Postal Service must comply with NEPA and ICA requirements for its facility relocation project, but laches bars enjoining further construction due to significant progress.
• Wathen v. The United States
  527 F.2d 1191· Ct. Cl.· 1975-12-17 ·cited 42×
• Sierra Club v. Peterson
  717 F.2d 1409· D.C. Cir.· 1983-09-13 ·cited 41×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
  The court held that the Forest Service's decision to issue oil and gas leases without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on lands without a No Surface Occupancy Stipulation violated NEPA because the Department could not preclude surface-disturbing activities at the
• Wolfe v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc.
  710 F.2d 388· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-22 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the denial letter violated ERISA's procedural requirements and that the district court erred in directly instating the plaintiff into the LTD plan without remanding to the fiduciary.
• Consolidation Coal Co. v. Costle
  604 F.2d 239· 4th Cir.· 1979-06-25 ·cited 41×
  The court upheld most EPA water pollution regulations for the coal industry but struck down a variance clause for failing to consider statutory factors and remanded it for revision. The court also upheld the exclusion of western mines from certain limitations pending further stud
• State v. Mathews
  526 F.2d 319· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-23 ·cited 41×
  The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare did not exceed his statutory authority in promulgating 45 CFR § 252.10(b)(3), which requires state Medicaid licensing boards for nursing home administrators to be representative and not dominated by a single profession.
• State OF Md. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  530 F.2d 215· 4th Cir.· 1975-09-19 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the EPA's regulation requiring employers to submit mass transit incentive plans was impermissibly vague and lacked adequate notice, rendering it invalid. It also found that the EPA could not direct a state legislature to enact laws.
• Gaydosh v. Lewis
  410 F.2d 262· D.C. Cir.· 1969-03-07 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the trustees' denial of the appellant's pension application was not arbitrary or capricious, as the applicant failed to meet the revised eligibility requirements.
• Constantinos Roumeliotis and Panayota Roumeliotis v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  304 F.2d 453· 7th Cir.· 1962-06-15 ·cited 41×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review the denial of a first preference visa petition as it is ancillary to deportation orders, and that the denial was not arbitrary or capricious. The court also held that the INS has no duty to stay deportation proceedings based solel
• Berger v. Edgewater Steel Co.
  911 F.2d 911· 3d Cir.· 1990-08-15 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the majority's decision allowing Edgewater to amend its ERISA plan by unwritten policy is inconsistent with ERISA and overlooks record evidence, thus summary judgment on the 70/80 retirement issue was improperly granted.
• van Boxel v. The Journal Co. Emps'. Pension Tr.
  836 F.2d 1048· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 40×
  The court held that even with a potential conflict of interest among trustees, the denial of pension benefits was not arbitrary and capricious because the employee's status as an employee had clearly ended upon expiration of his leave of absence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. Union v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.
  834 F.2d 191· D.C. Cir.· 1987-12-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the union's position on appeal was different from the position advanced before the agency, thus precluding the appellate argument.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.
  744 F.2d 842· D.C. Cir.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a union proposal requiring compliance with applicable laws and regulations regarding contracting-out is a negotiable subject of bargaining, as it does not impair management's statutory right to make contracting-out decisions.
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. The Dep't OF Energy & James B. Edwards
  728 F.2d 1477· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1983-12-20 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the 'deemed recovery rule' was procedurally invalid due to lack of proper notice and comment, and that laches was available as a defense against Mobil's challenge.
• Pompano v. Michael Schiavone & Sons, Inc.
  680 F.2d 911· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 40×
  A pension plan summary violated ERISA by failing to disclose an unwritten rule prohibiting lump sum payments to long-term retirees, and by failing to provide written notice and review for the denial of such a payment.
• Santise v. Schweiker
  676 F.2d 925· 3d Cir.· 1982-04-08 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Department of Health and Human Services' medical-vocational regulations, including the 'grid' system, satisfy the Social Security Act's requirements and do not conflict with prior case law.
• Smith v. Fulton Rabalais, Jr.
  659 F.2d 539· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-15 ·cited 40×
  The court held that prison officials did not abuse their discretion in refusing to provide an inmate with specific details of charges based on confidential informants, balancing prison security against the inmate's due process rights.
• Gordon v. Ilwu-Pma Benefit Funds
  616 F.2d 433· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-03 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trustees' denial of extended death benefits was not arbitrary or capricious, as their interpretation of the plan rules was reasonable and consistent with the plan's purpose.
• Cliff J. Wilson v. Bd. of Trs. of the Pension Tr. Fund for Operating Eng'rs & Pension Tr. Fund for Operating Eng'rs
  564 F.2d 1299· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-23 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the break-in-employment rule, as applied to the plaintiff, was not arbitrary or unreasonable, and affirmed the district court's judgment denying disability benefits.
• Giles v. The United States
  553 F.2d 647· Ct. Cl.· 1977-04-20 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the IRS employee's removal for failure to file tax returns was justified and supported by substantial evidence, and that the penalty was not an abuse of discretion.