Arbitrary and Capricious

3,777 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Wienberg v. The United States
  425 F.2d 1244· Ct. Cl.· 1970-05-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the IRS applied an improper standard or acted arbitrarily in denying his promotion in absentia, and thus the Board of Appeals and Review's decision denying back pay was correct.
• Ragoni v. United States
  424 F.2d 261· 3d Cir.· 1970-04-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant a declaratory judgment or review the Correction Board's decision, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate arbitrary or capricious action within the administrative record and did not meet jurisdictional requirement
• Cent. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Chariton v. Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd.
  422 F.2d 504· 8th Cir.· 1970-02-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Federal Home Loan Bank Board acted within its statutory authority in authorizing mobile savings and loan facilities and that the plaintiffs failed to state a proper claim for antitrust violations.
• Muskardin v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  415 F.2d 865· 2d Cir.· 1969-09-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Special Inquiry Officer's denial of withholding deportation was not an abuse of discretion, as the scope of review is extremely narrow and limited to whether the decision was arbitrary or capricious.
• Salter v. The United States
  412 F.2d 874· Ct. Cl.· 1969-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the withholding of medical reports and that the inclusion of an affidavit did not deny administrative due process, affirming the demotion.
• Kasparek v. Gardner
  409 F.2d 214· 9th Cir.· 1969-03-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that even if the Administrative Procedures Act authorizes review of the denial to reopen, the Appeals Council's decision was reasonable and not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
• Udall v. Taunah
  398 F.2d 795· 10th Cir.· 1968-07-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Secretary of the Interior's refusal to consider a family settlement agreement on its merits, based on procedural grounds rather than substantive ones, was an abdication of responsibility requiring remand.
• Scott Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States
  390 F.2d 388· 9th Cir.· 1968-02-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a new trial on just compensation because the government's expert witnesses based their valuations on an illegal 'clear cutting' method, rendering the jury award unsupported by legally sufficient evidence.
• Seaboard Airline R.R. Co. v. The United States
  387 F.2d 651· Ct. Cl.· 1967-12-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission's determination that deicers and decontaminators were single articles rated class 45 was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, and therefore, the court would not disturb the ICC's decision or gran
• Rabiner & Jontow, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  386 F.2d 667· 2d Cir.· 1967-12-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Federal Trade Commission did not abuse its discretion by issuing a cease and desist order against one manufacturer while other competitors were also engaged in the same illegal practice, and that a cross-application for enforcement of the order is not requ
• Metro. Dade Cnty. Water & Sewer Bd. v. Cmty. Utils. Corp.
  200 So. 2d 831· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-07-05 ·cited 8×
  A regulatory board's determination of executive salary allowances and rate of return must be based on competent substantial evidence, not mere familiarity or opinion.
• Heffelman v. Udall
  378 F.2d 109· 10th Cir.· 1967-05-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not grant jurisdiction to review the Secretary of the Interior's determination of heirship to a restricted Indian estate, as such decisions are statutorily made final.
• Alaska S.S. Co. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n & United States
  356 F.2d 59· 9th Cir.· 1966-02-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to reopen was not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion, and the application to adduce additional evidence was denied.
• Nello L. Teer Co. v. The United States
  348 F.2d 533· Ct. Cl.· 1965-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The Secretary of Labor's wage determination was not final and conclusive because it was arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by substantial evidence when considering the entire record.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Brown Lumber Co.
  336 F.2d 641· 6th Cir.· 1964-09-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's rule requiring immediate service of election protests was a reasonable procedural rule that the Board was authorized to adopt.
• The Marine Corp. v. The Bd. OF Governors OF the Fed. Reserve Sys.
  325 F.2d 960· 7th Cir.· 1963-12-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Board of Governors' denial of the bank holding company's application to acquire another bank was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.
• SUN OIL Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  304 F.2d 290· 5th Cir.· 1962-04-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petition for review was premature because the Commission's letter order was interlocutory and not a final, appealable decision.
• Joso Milutin v. Bouchard
  299 F.2d 50· 3d Cir.· 1962-01-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a stay of deportation may be withheld solely upon the basis of undisclosed information, and that such a decision is not arbitrary or capricious.
• Chung Wing Ping v. Kennedy
  294 F.2d 735· D.C. Cir.· 1961-07-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance for discovery, as the appellants' request was untimely and lacked sufficient factual basis.
• Jordan v. United Ins. Co. OF Am.
  289 F.2d 778· D.C. Cir.· 1961-03-30 ·cited 8×
  A local court of general jurisdiction has the authority to conduct a trial de novo to review administrative action when no specific statutory provision for judicial review exists, and such a trial de novo can satisfy due process requirements.
• O'Brien v. United States
  284 F.2d 692· Ct. Cl.· 1960-12-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's procedural rights were not violated by the agency's actions, and therefore, his claim for salary must be denied.
• Dulcy v. United States
  284 F.2d 687· Ct. Cl.· 1960-03-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the agency's separation of the plaintiff followed proper procedures and was not arbitrary, and that the Civil Service Commission and the President's Committee on Government Employment Policy also acted without procedural error or arbitrariness.
• City OF Coral Gables v. Brasher
  120 So. 2d 5· Fla.· 1960-01-27 ·cited 8×
  A police captain sought a disability pension based on a statutory presumption that certain health conditions in police officers arose from line of duty. The circuit court held he was entitled to the presumption, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the city did no
• Gottfried Andrew Anderson and Anna Maria Anderson v. The City OF N. Miami
  99 So. 2d 861· Fla.· 1957-12-20 ·cited 8×
  Property owners challenged special assessments levied by the City of North Miami for street improvements, including widening, repaving, and lighting installation. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the assessments as substantially valid but reversed in part, holding that costs for
• Kraus v. Dulles
  235 F.2d 840· D.C. Cir.· 1956-07-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal of the passport application case was unjustified, as there was a likelihood that the State Department's actions were arbitrary and capricious.
• Brown v. United States
  216 F.2d 258· 9th Cir.· 1954-10-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Selective Service Boards' refusal to grant the defendant exemption as a minister was without basis in fact and arbitrary, requiring reversal.
• Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  206 F.2d 26· 5th Cir.· 1953-08-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board was justified in finding that the apartment hotel operation and maintenance employees, along with other company employees, constituted an appropriate bargaining unit.
• United States v. Bartelt
  200 F.2d 385· 7th Cir.· 1952-12-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the draft board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the defendant's classification, as the facts presented did not meet the statutory requirements for exemption as a full-time student preparing for the ministry.
• Tobin v. Traders Compress Co.
  199 F.2d 8· 10th Cir.· 1952-09-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Administrator's regulation limiting the Fair Labor Standards Act exemption based on plant location near towns or employee numbers was ultra vires.
• Flour Mills of Am., Inc. v. Reconstr. Fin. Corp.
  179 F.2d 965· Emer. Ct. App.· 1950-02-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the regulation's interpretation and application, requiring a single first-in-first-out accounting for all wheat ground against total forward sales, was lawful and not arbitrary or capricious.
• Counselman v. Fleming
  161 F.2d 203· Emer. Ct. App.· 1947-04-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the complainant failed to sustain the burden of proof that the maximum prices for veal were arbitrary and capricious as applied to non-processing slaughterers.
• Levers v. Berkshire
  159 F.2d 689· 10th Cir.· 1947-01-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of a wholesaler's basic permit was not arbitrary or capricious, as the applicant's past conduct and trade connections indicated a likelihood of non-compliance with federal law.
• United States ex rel. Bodenstein v. Nichols
  151 F.2d 155· 3d Cir.· 1945-09-18 ·cited 8×
  A court cannot substitute its judgment for that of Selective Service Boards unless there is a clear showing of fraud, caprice, lack of power, or lack of due process.
• Watts v. R.R. Ret. Bd.
  150 F.2d 113· 5th Cir.· 1945-06-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Railroad Retirement Board's finding of no total and permanent disability was supported by the evidence and not arbitrary or erroneous.
• Millis v. Inland Empire Dist. Council
  144 F.2d 539· D.C. Cir.· 1944-07-24 ·cited 8×
  The majority held that the Labor Act does not authorize judicial review of the Board's certification if it has not been followed by an order.
• Cudahy Bros. Co. v. Bowles
  142 F.2d 468· Emer. Ct. App.· 1944-05-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the complainant failed to provide clear and compelling evidence that its situation was substantially the same as those favored by the regulation, or that the regulation was arbitrary or capricious.
• JFK Med. Ctr. Ltd. v. Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr.
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-11-13 ·cited 7×
  The Department of Health's proposed rules interpreting "need" for trauma centers as a minimum rather than a maximum were a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority because the term "need" is ambiguous and the Department's interpretation falls within the range of reasonab
• Horne v. Flores
  9th Cir.· 2009-06-25 ·cited 7×
  The Court held that the lower courts erred by focusing too narrowly on incremental funding rather than the broader question of whether the State was fulfilling its obligation to overcome language barriers through other means.
• Hollywood Cmty. Synagogue, Inc. v. City of Hollywood
  430 F. Supp. 2d 1296· S.D. Fla.· 2006-05-10 ·cited 7×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motions to dismiss, allowing certain claims to proceed while dismissing others.
• Sierra Club v. Flowers
  423 F. Supp. 2d 1273· S.D. Fla.· 2006-03-22 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the agency's decision-making process suffered from substantial deficiencies, resulting in decisions not in accordance with federal environmental laws.
• Quevedo v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist.
  762 So. 2d 982· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-06-07 ·cited 7×
  Quevedo appeals the South Florida Water Management District's revocation of his permit to erect a fence on the District's canal right-of-way behind his property. The court affirms the revocation, holding that the fence's obstruction of public access to the right-of-way was incons
• Campos v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  32 F. Supp. 2d 1337· S.D. Fla.· 1998-12-09 ·cited 7×
  The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding it had subject matter jurisdiction and that plaintiffs had not failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and that their claims under the INA, APA, FOIA, and Due Process Clause were cognizable.
• Decarion v. Monroe Cnty.
  853 F. Supp. 1415· S.D. Fla.· 1994-05-19 ·cited 7×
  The court held that while the county's denial of the infrastructure permit deprived plaintiffs of a protected property interest, the denial was not arbitrary and capricious, thus not rising to the level of a constitutional tort.
• Procacci v. State
  603 So. 2d 1299· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-08-03 ·cited 7×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed an administrative order awarding a competitively bid lease to Lima Development Corporation because HRS improperly delegated its statutory responsibility to evaluate and select bids to the hearing officer, even though the parties stipu
• Devoe L. Moore v. State
  596 So. 2d 759· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-04-02 ·cited 7×
  This case concerns the proper procedure for evaluating competitive bids for a government lease. The court held that an administrative hearing officer exceeded their authority by conducting a de novo review of bids when the issue was a disputed award, rather than a rejection of al
• Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes
  771 F. Supp. 1557· S.D. Fla.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the city acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the plaintiff's development plan, constituting a violation of substantive due process, and that the plaintiff had a constitutionally protected property interest.
• Martin Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  584 So. 2d 39· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-07-05 ·cited 7×
  Martin Memorial Hospital Association sought judicial review of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' rejection of its letter of intent for a certificate of need application based on using the phrase "within the cost guidelines" instead of the mandated "at or below
• Monroe C. Schiffman v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg.
  581 So. 2d 1375· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-06-13 ·cited 7×
  Monroe Schiffman appeals the Board of Pharmacy's denial of his application to reinstate his pharmacy license, which was revoked in 1977 for illegal distribution of controlled substances. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that the Board must
• Dytrt v. The Mountain State Tel. & Tel. Co.
  921 F.2d 889· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-17 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the employer's denial of the employee's request to revoke her early retirement election, under the circumstances, breached its ERISA fiduciary duty, but did not violate ERISA's anti-interference provision, and that the state law claim was preempted by ERISA.
• MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  917 F.2d 30· D.C. Cir.· 1990-10-23 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the FCC improperly relied on cost and price factors when determining that AT&T's integrated service packages were not 'like' aggregated individual services, and remanded this issue for reconsideration. The court also found that the FCC's reasoning on price dis