Arbitrary and Capricious

3,786 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 448 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Appalachian Power Co. v. Russell E. Train Env't Prot. Agency
  545 F.2d 1351· 4th Cir.· 1976-07-16 ·cited 62×
  The court clarified its prior opinion, amending references to variance clauses and directing reconsideration of certain regulations, while denying other requested modifications.
• Handee T. LEE v. Nesbitt
  453 F.2d 1309· 9th Cir.· 1971-06-11 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the break-in-employment rule was unreasonable on its face to the extent it cancelled pension credits for an employee who had met minimum employment requirements but suffered an involuntary break due to unavailability of work before reaching retirement age.
• Algonac Mfg. Co. (a Close Mich. Corporation) & John A. Maxwell v. The United States
  428 F.2d 1241· Ct. Cl.· 1970-07-15 ·cited 62×
  The court held that John A. Maxwell was not a proper party to sue on contract claims as he was not the real party in interest, and that tort claims were outside the court's jurisdiction. Claims for the ninth contract were barred by the statute of limitations, and other claims wer
• Kessler v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  326 F.2d 673· D.C. Cir.· 1963-12-20 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the FCC's freeze on radio broadcast applications was a procedural rule change, not a substantive one, and therefore did not require the notice and public rulemaking procedures mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Earl C. Gibbs, Inc. v. Def. Supplies Corp.
  155 F.2d 525· Emer. Ct. App.· 1946-05-08 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the affiliation provisions in Amendment No. 2, which created an irrebuttable presumption of control based on a loan exceeding five percent of monthly sales, were not arbitrary or capricious and were a valid condition for receiving a special subsidy.
• Alday v. Container Corp. OF Am.
  906 F.2d 660· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-24 ·cited 61×
  Modifications to a retiree health insurance plan are permissible under ERISA if the plan documents, including the Summary Plan Description (SPD), clearly reserve the right to amend or terminate the plan, and other communications do not constitute formal plan documents or valid am
• Rural NEW Town, Inc. v. Palm Beach Cnty.
  315 So. 2d 478· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-06-27 ·cited 61×
  Rural New Town, Inc. appealed the denial of a petition for certiorari challenging Palm Beach County's rejection of its rezoning and special exception application. The court held that the applicant met its burden of proving the rezoning issue was not fairly debatable based on subs
• Spencer v. Kemp
  781 F.2d 1458· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-23 ·cited 60×
  The petitioner is entitled to federal habeas review of his jury selection claim because he presented the objection seasonably to the trial court.
• Denton v. First Nat'l Bank OF Waco
  765 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the district court erred in not applying ERISA's arbitrary and capricious standard to the Plan fiduciary's denial of benefits and that the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is applicable.
• Se. Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. Watson
  697 F.2d 1305· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-31 ·cited 60×
  The court held that ANILCA subsection 503(h)(3) requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for bulk sampling activities, and that the proposed 1980-83 amendment activities constitute bulk sampling, thus requiring an EIS before Forest Service authorization.
• G.K. Phillips v. United States Postal Serv.
  695 F.2d 1389· Fed. Cir.· 1982-12-23 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision not to waive the regulatory time limit for filing an appeal was not arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
• Garrett v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  513 F.2d 1056· D.C. Cir.· 1975-06-02 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the FCC erred in denying WEUP's application by failing to adequately consider relevant precedents regarding coverage rules and by improperly dismissing the significance of black ownership and operation.
• Augustine Ponce v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. FOR S. Cal.
  628 F.2d 537· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-22 ·cited 59×
  The court held that a pension plan's 15-year vesting requirement may be deemed arbitrary and capricious if it excludes an unusually high percentage of participants, especially when coupled with a decision to significantly increase benefit levels without sufficient justification.
• Pete v. United Mine Workers OF Am. Welf. & Ret. Fund OF 1950
  517 F.2d 1275· D.C. Cir.· 1975-02-12 ·cited 59×
  Miners with at least five years of signatory service (not one year) who were wrongfully denied pension benefits under the invalid "signatory last employment" requirement are entitled to pension benefits retroactive to the date their applications were denied, plus interest at six
• First Nat'l Bank OF Fayetteville v. Smith
  508 F.2d 1371· 8th Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the District Court erred in substituting its judgment for the Comptroller's by reweighing the evidence, and that the Comptroller's grant of preliminary approval was not arbitrary or capricious.
• Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  710 F.2d 1165· 6th Cir.· 1983-06-24 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the FTC's actions constituted final agency action reviewable by the court, and that Brown & Williamson's claims under the Administrative Procedure Act lacked merit.
• Madge H. Elser and Margaret E. Thomas v. I. A. M. Nat'l Pension Fund
  684 F.2d 648· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-20 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the pension fund's cancellation provisions for past service credit were arbitrary and capricious and violated ERISA and LMRA because the fund failed to provide actuarial evidence justifying the provisions' necessity for financial stability.
• In re Surface Mining Reg. Litig. (three cases). Appeal of Am. Mining Cong.
  627 F.2d 1346· D.C. Cir.· 1980-05-02 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the interim regulations promulgated under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 were valid, rejecting challenges based on the adequacy of the basis and purpose statement, the absence of general variance procedures, and the lack of formal econo
• United States v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  652 F.2d 72· D.C. Cir.· 1980-03-07 ·cited 58×
  The FCC has discretion in enforcing the Clayton Act, and its decision to grant a license without an evidentiary hearing, balancing public interest benefits against potential antitrust concerns, was not erroneous.
• Young v. Hampton
  568 F.2d 1253· 7th Cir.· 1977-12-29 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the government's dismissal of an employee for off-duty criminal conduct was arbitrary and capricious because no evidence demonstrated that the conduct impaired the efficiency of the service.
• Paul v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  521 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-17 ·cited 58×
  The dissenting judge argued that the order of the Board should be vacated and the cause remanded for further evidence development and reconsideration.
• Nader v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & the United States
  513 F.2d 1045· D.C. Cir.· 1975-05-30 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the Atomic Energy Commission's denial of a petition to shut down nuclear power plants was not arbitrary or capricious, as compliance with the Interim Acceptance Criteria provided reasonable assurance of public safety.
• Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. The United States
  413 F.2d 568· Ct. Cl.· 1969-07-16 ·cited 58×
  The court has the right and ability to conduct a trial de novo to determine if an administrative official has abused discretion assigned by statute.
• Schwartz v. Napoleon Covington
  341 F.2d 537· 9th Cir.· 1965-02-10 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the district court's stay of discharge, finding that the traditional factors for granting a stay pending review were met.
• Moshe Leib v. Hillsborough Cnty. Pub. Transp. Comm'n
  558 F.3d 1301· 11th Cir.· 2009-02-19 ·cited 57×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, holding that the Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission's "luxury" requirement for limousines did not violate due process or equal protection, was not unconstitutionally vague
• Psychiatric Assocs. v. Edward A. Siegel, M.D.
  610 So. 2d 419· Fla.· 1992-12-03 ·cited 57×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that statutory bond requirements forcing plaintiffs to post security for defendants' costs and attorney's fees before suing medical review board participants violate the constitutional right of access to courts and due process rights. The bond requi
• Short v. Central States
  729 F.2d 567· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-12 ·cited 57×
  The court held that owner-operators Short and Zorn were employees under the pension plan, entitling them to benefits, and that procedural requirements for benefit denials were not met in Short's case.
• The Oglala Sioux Tribe OF Indians v. Andrus
  603 F.2d 707· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-27 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) decision to transfer Anthony Whirlwind Horse was arbitrary and capricious, violating the Indian Reorganization Act and the BIA's own consultation policy. The court reversed the district court's denial of injunctive and decla
• Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Bowen
  815 F.2d 1435· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-05 ·cited 56×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review claims of 'self-disallowing' hospitals because they never sought reimbursement under the pre-1979 malpractice rule from their fiscal intermediary.
• United States Dep't of Just. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.
  709 F.2d 724· D.C. Cir.· 1983-06-10 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a union proposal to make probationary federal employee terminations grievable under a collective bargaining agreement is inconsistent with law and therefore not a negotiable subject for bargaining.
• Keco Indus., Inc. v. The United States
  492 F.2d 1200· Ct. Cl.· 1974-02-20 ·cited 56×
  Simple negligence in evaluating a competitor's bid, without bad faith or a complete lack of reasonable basis, is insufficient to warrant recovery of bid preparation expenses by a disappointed bidder.
• Aerojet-General Corp. v. The Am. Arb. Ass'n
  478 F.2d 248· 9th Cir.· 1973-04-30 ·cited 56×
  Judicial review of an arbitrator's locale selection is permissible in extreme cases, but the district court erred in granting an injunction as the AAA's decision was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious.
• State v. DAY Cruise Ass'n, Inc.
  794 So. 2d 696· Fla. 1st DCA· 2001-09-13 ·cited 55×·via Arbitrary And Capricious Agency Action
  The Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund attempted to adopt a rule prohibiting the mooring or anchoring of cruise ships engaged in 'cruises to nowhere' (gambling vessels that leave and return to Florida without stopping in another state) on sovereign s
• Sierra Club v. Sigler
  695 F.2d 957· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-20 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the Corps' voluntary compliance with new CEQ regulations means review must adhere to those regulations, including the 'worst case' analysis requirement. The court also found that the FEIS's failure to conduct a 'worst case' analysis was a violation of NEPA.
• Sierra Club v. Lt. Gen. Robert L. VAN Antwerp Chief of Eng'rs
  526 F.3d 1353· 11th Cir.· 2008-05-09 ·cited 54×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment. The court held that it had appellate jurisdiction over the summary judgment and remedies orders. It agreed that the Endangered Species Act claim was mooted and the district court's NEPA anal
• N. Buckhead Civic Ass'n v. Skinner
  903 F.2d 1533· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-26 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and affirmed the denial of the injunction.
• Moon v. Am. Home Assurance Co.
  888 F.2d 86· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the denial of benefits under an ERISA plan is reviewed de novo unless the plan expressly grants discretionary authority to the administrator, and that the trial court's application of this standard was harmless error.
• Regents OF the Univ. OF Cal. v. Heckler
  771 F.2d 1182· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-02 ·cited 54×
  The Secretary has a statutory obligation to reimburse all reasonable costs incurred by Medicare providers, and the 1972 amendments authorizing cost limits did not eliminate this duty or the requirement for corrective adjustments when limits prove inadequate.
• SAN Antonio v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  631 F.2d 831· D.C. Cir.· 1980-06-09 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the ICC's orders prescribing maximum reasonable rates were arbitrary and unreasonable due to flawed cost calculations and an unjustified additive, requiring remand.
• Public Citizen v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
  565 F.2d 708· D.C. Cir.· 1977-08-25 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the Machinery Dealers National Association (MDNA) lacked standing to challenge the sale of government property because its members failed to demonstrate a concrete and particularized "injury in fact" that was redressable by the court.
• Mrs. Geneva B. Phillips v. Kennedy
  542 F.2d 52· 8th Cir.· 1976-09-15 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the trustees' denial of survivor pension benefits was arbitrary and capricious.
• Charlton v. United States & John W. Macy, Jr.
  412 F.2d 390· 3d Cir.· 1969-06-02 ·cited 54×
  The concurring judge agrees that the case must be remanded due to the district court's narrow scope of review but disagrees with the majority's inclusion of the substantial evidence test for reviewing government employee discharges.
• Dori Zardui-Quintana v. Richard
  768 F.2d 1213· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-02 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district director's denial of stays of deportation was not arbitrary or capricious, as the statute does not require separate findings of a "particularly serious crime" and "danger to the community" when a conviction for a particularly serious crime is esta
• Hebra A. Berry v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
  761 F.2d 1003· 4th Cir.· 1985-05-13 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the arbitrary and capricious standard for reviewing benefit plan decisions is a matter for the court, not a jury, and that the trial court improperly admitted evidence not presented to the plan administrator. The court reversed and remanded for reconsideration
• Tackitt v. Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am.
  758 F.2d 1572· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-30 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the health benefit plan's modification clause was unambiguous, preserving only rights for services received prior to modification, and that the Office of Personnel Management's approval of benefit reductions was not arbitrary or capricious.
• People OF THE State OF Ill. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  722 F.2d 1341· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-05 ·cited 53×
  The court held that while the Commission's procedural errors in dismissing evidence and denying a motion to strike were not adequately explained, they were harmless because they could not have affected the outcome.
• Gosman v. The United States
  573 F.2d 31· Ct. Cl.· 1978-02-22 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the Hearing Panel's decisions regarding depreciation, advertising costs, deferred financing charges, and interest-free loans were not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence, and affirmed the Panel's rulings.
• Sarasota Cnty. v. Sarasota Church OF Christ, Inc.
  667 So. 2d 180· Fla.· 1995-12-21 ·cited 52×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld Sarasota County's special assessment for stormwater services, rejecting religious organizations' challenge that such assessments constitute invalid taxes. The Court held that developed properties receive a special benefit from stormwater treatment
• DE Nobel v. Vitro Corp.
  885 F.2d 1180· 4th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the Vitro retirement plan grants administrators discretionary authority to interpret its terms, thus requiring review under the abuse of discretion standard, not de novo review. The administrators' interpretation was found reasonable, affirming the summary jud
• Penry v. Lynaugh
  832 F.2d 915· 5th Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 52×·via Arbitrary And Capricious Sentencing
  The court held that Texas law did not permit the jury to consider all of Penry's personal mitigating circumstances prior to sentencing, but was bound by superior authority to reject this contention.