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

• Amoco OIL Co. v. OIL
  548 F.2d 1288· 7th Cir.· 1977-01-24 ·cited 40×
  The arbitrator's award must be vacated because the arbitrator exceeded his contractual authority by making a second, unauthorized finding regarding 'just cause' for discharge, which demonstrated a manifest disregard for the collective bargaining agreement.
• Dunlop v. Rockwell Int'l (formerly N. Am. Rockwell Corp.) & the Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  540 F.2d 1283· 6th Cir.· 1976-08-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Commission's decision to vacate the citation and abatement order was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion because it ignored significant employee testimony regarding dust conditions and system malfunctions.
• Sierra Club v. Env't Prot. Agency
  540 F.2d 1114· D.C. Cir.· 1976-08-02 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Clean Air Act requires the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality, affirming the EPA's regulations designed to achieve this. The court found the regulations to be rationally based, within the Administrator's authority, and constitutional.
• Tanners' Council OF Am., Inc. v. Train
  540 F.2d 1188· 4th Cir.· 1976-03-10 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the 1977 effluent limitations and new source performance standards were not adequately supported by evidence in the record and were remanded, while the 1983 limitations were left in force but subject to future review.
• Texaco, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Admin.
  531 F.2d 1071· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1976-02-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the FEA's mandatory petroleum pricing regulation, including the exemption of Shell P.R. from the refiner rule and the related cost-equalization relief, was valid and not rendered ineffective by procedural or substantive defects.
• Warren Transp., Inc. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  525 F.2d 148· 8th Cir.· 1975-11-10 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the Interstate Commerce Commission's denial of a certificate of public convenience and necessity, finding the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence and a rational judgment.
• Bannert v. Am. CAN Co.
  525 F.2d 104· 6th Cir.· 1975-10-23 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Annuity Board's termination of retirement benefits for an employee who voluntarily retired and joined a competitor was not arbitrary or unconscionable under Michigan law.
• Nader v. Sawhill
  514 F.2d 1064· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1975-04-11 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Cost of Living Council's decision to increase the price of old crude oil had a rational basis and was not procedurally infirm, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Cincinnati Elecs. Corp. v. Kleppe
  509 F.2d 1080· 6th Cir.· 1975-01-31 ·cited 40×
  A disappointed bidder has standing to challenge a government contract award if they allege injury in fact and the challenged action falls within the zone of interests protected by the relevant statute, particularly when the protest concerns adherence to regulations implementing a
• Fla. Peach Growers Ass'n, Inc. v. United States Dep't OF Labor
  489 F.2d 120· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-09 ·cited 40×
  Emergency temporary standards under OSHA may be amended in the same manner and under the same criteria as their initial issuance, and the "substantial evidence" test applies to their judicial review.
• Bradley v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  483 F.2d 410· 1st Cir.· 1973-07-31 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not presenting their specific arguments regarding misbranding and FDA regulations to the agency first.
• Laurence H. Frommhagen
  456 F.2d 1391· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-13 ·cited 40×
  The court held that Executive Order No. 10987 does not require an agency employee to be retained in active duty status pending the outcome of their administrative appeal from a discharge decision.
• Pelicone v. Hodges
  320 F.2d 754· D.C. Cir.· 1963-06-13 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the charges for which the employee was dismissed, and thus the dismissal could not be sustained.
• Hlinka v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. & Gen. Pension Bd. of the Bethlehem Steel Corp. & Subsidiary Cos.
  863 F.2d 279· 3d Cir.· 1988-12-08 ·cited 39×
  The court held that while the ERISA full and fair review provision applies to early retirement plans, a remand was unnecessary because the specific reason for denial was eventually provided.
• Varhola v. DOE
  820 F.2d 809· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard of review applies to ERISA plan administrator decisions denying benefits, and that factual issues regarding whether the plan administrator acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying 'shutdown pensions' require remand.
• Wichita and Affiliated Tribes of Oklahoma v. Hodel
  788 F.2d 765· D.C. Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the Caddos' cross-claim for retroactive relief should have been dismissed because the Wichitas and Delawares were indispensable parties who could not be joined due to tribal immunity. The court also held that the Assistant Secretary improperly decided against
• Choctaw Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United States
  761 F.2d 609· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-07 ·cited 39×
  The court affirmed the decision, finding that the contracting officer should have awarded the contracts to the plaintiff.
• Erickson AIR Crane Co. OF Wash., Inc. v. The United States
  731 F.2d 810· Fed. Cir.· 1984-03-26 ·cited 39×
  The court held that subcontractors generally lack standing to sue the government directly and that the specific claims presented did not meet the contractual requirements for value engineering claims or entitlement to platforms for stringing operations.
• Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps OF Eng'rs
  701 F.2d 1011· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-25 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the Corps of Engineers violated NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and the Rivers and Harbors Act by issuing a landfill permit based on an inadequate environmental impact statement concerning fisheries, and that FHWA also violated NEPA by failing to prepare a suppleme
• The State OF Cal. v. Watt
  683 F.2d 1253· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-12 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the Secretary of the Interior violated the Coastal Zone Management Act by failing to make a consistency determination for Lease Sale 53, as the sale would 'directly affect' California's coastal zone. The court also held that the environmental groups had standi
• Council OF the S. Mountains, Inc. v. Donovan
  653 F.2d 573· D.C. Cir.· 1981-04-16 ·cited 39×
  The Secretary of Labor had good cause to defer implementation of SCSR regulations without notice and comment due to special circumstances, and the decision to postpone was reasonable.
• Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  642 F.2d 1221· D.C. Cir.· 1980-06-24 ·cited 39×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the FCC's acceptance of the TELPAK rate filing, as the agency order was not final and reviewable.
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. Dep't OF Energy & Charles W. Duncan, Jr.
  610 F.2d 796· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1979-11-19 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the Department of Energy's April 30, 1974 amendment to the Mandatory Petroleum Price Regulations was null and void because it was promulgated arbitrarily, capriciously, beyond the agency's statutory authority, and in violation of the Administrative Procedure A
• Bueneman v. Central States
  572 F.2d 1208· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-09 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the pension fund trustees did not abuse their discretion or act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying coverage to the appellant based on the employer's failure to meet participation requirements and the trustees' policy against retroactive coverage.
• McGLASSON v. The United States
  397 F.2d 303· Ct. Cl.· 1968-06-14 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to sustain her burden of proof for recovery and that the petition must be dismissed, agreeing with the outcome but not the plurality's reasoning.
• Brown v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp.
  876 F.2d 546· 6th Cir.· 1989-06-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying the arbitrary and capricious standard of review instead of the de novo standard mandated by Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Bruch. The court also found that the 1984 guidelines constituted a valid ERISA plan.
• Am. Fed'n OF Gov't Emps., Local 1760, AFL-CIO v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.
  786 F.2d 554· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-24 ·cited 38×·via Standard Of Review For Agency Action (Arbitrary, Capricious, Abuse Of Discretion)
  The court held that the release of employee addresses to the Union was not prohibited by law under the Privacy Act, balancing the modest privacy interest against the Union's need for communication.
• Delta Data Sys. Corp. v. Webster
  744 F.2d 197· D.C. Cir.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while the FBI's failure to allow Delta Data to refute negative financial information was an error, the district court exceeded its authority by ordering the contract awarded to Delta Data, as it could not be guaranteed Delta Data would have won.
• Gen. Tel. Co. OF Fla. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
  446 So. 2d 1063· Fla.· 1984-02-02 ·cited 38×
  General Telephone Co. of Florida challenged a Florida Public Service Commission rule adjusting the income tax expense of regulated utilities that are subsidiaries filing consolidated tax returns with their parents. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the rule, finding it a valid qua
• In re Lucian G. Vorpahl
  695 F.2d 318· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-17 ·cited 38×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
  Petitioners are not entitled to a jury trial for claims seeking present and future pension benefits under ERISA, as such claims are equitable in nature.
• City OF Charlottesville v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  661 F.2d 945· D.C. Cir.· 1981-08-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the agency's failure to pass through consolidated income tax savings was not sufficiently justified by evidence, and the agency's rationale was unclear.
• Valle v. Joint Plumbing Indus. Bd. (Local 2
  623 F.2d 196· 2d Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the pension fund trustees' application of the 1966 amendments was arbitrary and capricious as applied to the plaintiffs due to lack of notice and prejudice, entitling them to benefits.
• Indep. Bankers Ass'n of Am. v. Heimann
  613 F.2d 1164· D.C. Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 38×
  The Comptroller's regulation prohibiting national bank insiders from personally benefiting from credit life insurance income is authorized by law and is neither arbitrary nor capricious.
• Good Samaritan Hosp. v. Mathews
  609 F.2d 949· 9th Cir.· 1979-12-13 ·cited 38×
  The court held that Section 206 of the Provider Reimbursement Manual and Intermediary Letter No. 51 are exempt from APA rulemaking requirements under the benefit exception and that capitalization of construction loan interest is consistent with Medicare statutes and regulations.
• Ordnance Research, Inc. v. The United States
  609 F.2d 462· Ct. Cl.· 1979-10-17 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the ASBCA's decision was not entitled to finality due to lack of substantial evidence, and that the case should not be remanded for further findings on liability, as the evidence supported plaintiff's recovery for certain explosions.
• Aitken v. IP & Gcu-Employer Ret. Fund
  604 F.2d 1261· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a pension fund's determination of ineligibility based on its plan provisions is reasonable and cannot be overturned by estoppel, but remanded for consideration of individual liability claims against fund administrators.
• Leconte Fleurinor v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  585 F.2d 129· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the District Director's denial of asylum and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution to warrant withholding deportation.
• FMC Corp. v. Train
  539 F.2d 973· 4th Cir.· 1976-03-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that EPA's regulations for effluent limitations and performance standards for the plastics and synthetics industry were largely valid, but remanded specific aspects concerning hydraulic flows, new source standards, and certain COD limits for further consideration.
• Lugo v. The Emps. Ret. Fund OF the Illumination Prods. Indus.
  529 F.2d 251· 2d Cir.· 1976-01-14 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim regarding standard retirement benefits was not ripe for adjudication, and the denial of disability benefits did not violate section 302(c)(5) due to lack of procedural fairness given the applicant's weak claim.
• Friends OF THE Earth v. The U. S. Env't Prot. Agency & Nelson Rockefeller
  499 F.2d 1118· 2d Cir.· 1974-07-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that judicial review of EPA factual determinations is limited to whether they are arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law, and remanded for further explanation on specific issues.
• Nat'l Helium Corp. v. Rogers C. B. Morton
  486 F.2d 995· 10th Cir.· 1973-10-19 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Secretary's Final Environmental Statement (FES) was adequate under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and that the district court erred in enjoining the termination of helium purchase contracts.
• Gulf OIL Corp. v. Hickel
  435 F.2d 440· D.C. Cir.· 1970-10-19 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Oil Import Administrator's decision, affirmed by the Appeals Board, was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious, and thus affirmed the denial of Gulf's import allocation.
• Northwest Bancorporation v. Bd. OF Governors OF the Fed. Reserve Sys.
  303 F.2d 832· 8th Cir.· 1962-06-13 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Board of Governors' denial of a bank acquisition application was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, and that the denial of a hearing was proper under the circumstances.
• KAM NG v. Alva L. Pilliod
  279 F.2d 207· 7th Cir.· 1960-06-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the denial of suspension and withholding of deportation was not an abuse of discretion, as the appellant received procedural due process and the agency's decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
• Int'l Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  231 F.2d 237· 7th Cir.· 1956-03-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the unfair labor practice complaint, finding that the extension of the union security contract to new employees was proper as an accretion to an existing unit.
• United States ex rel. Leong Choy Moon v. Shaughnessy
  218 F.2d 316· 2d Cir.· 1954-12-23 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Attorney General's delegate has broad discretion to withhold deportation and that the term 'country' in deportation statutes can include unrecognized territories.
• Shaw v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co.
  353 F.3d 1276· 11th Cir.· 2003-12-19 ·cited 37×
  Shaw sought long-term disability benefits under an ERISA plan administered by Connecticut General, which denied his claim based on medical reviews concluding he was not totally disabled. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court correctly applied de novo review because th
• Kunin v. Benefit Tr. Life Ins. Co.
  910 F.2d 534· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-21 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the denial of benefits for autism treatment was arbitrary and capricious because the insurer's investigation was inadequate and the policy's term 'mental illness' was ambiguous, requiring construction in favor of the insured.
• Gaynell Boyd v. Trs. OF THE United Mine Workers Health & Ret. Funds
  873 F.2d 57· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the Trustees abused their discretion in denying disability pension benefits because the mine accident was substantially responsible for the claimant's total disability, even considering pre-existing conditions.
• Stop H-3 Ass'n v. Dole
  740 F.2d 1442· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-21 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the 'No Build' alternative, in the context of sections 138 and 303, refers to alternative routes for a chosen project, not the complete rejection of the project itself.