Judicial Review Of Agency Action (Arbitrary And Capricious Standard)

10 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  568 F.2d 284· 3d Cir.· 1977-09-14 ·cited 100×
  The court held that the EPA's interim final regulations were invalid as applied to the specialty steel industry due to insufficient notice under the Administrative Procedure Act. However, the court found the notice sufficient regarding the adoption of more stringent treatment tec
• S. Cal. Edison Co. & Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  770 F.2d 779· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that FERC's promulgation of procedural rules for BPA rate approval did not require notice and comment under the APA, but that the agency failed to apply required Federal Power Act procedures regarding ex parte communications and case-in-chief filing for nonregional
• Philadelphia Citizens IN Action by Roxanne Jones v. Schweiker
  669 F.2d 877· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-15 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the federal defendant had good cause under the APA to dispense with notice and comment procedures when promulgating regulations for the AFDC program.
• E. Tex. Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. The United States & the Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  593 F.2d 691· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-23 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the Interstate Commerce Commission abused its discretion by granting extensive temporary operating authority without sufficient justification or explanation.
• Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  445 F.2d 891· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by directing arbitration for airline employee seniority list integration disputes, even when one party expressed reluctance.
• Nat'l Cong. OF Hispanic Am. Citizens (EL Congreso) v. Marshall
  626 F.2d 882· D.C. Cir.· 1979-12-27 ·cited 16×
  The Secretary of Labor has discretion to set priorities and delay standard development in good faith, but must provide a reasonable timetable for standards that have been initiated.
• Tenn. GAS Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  689 F.2d 212· D.C. Cir.· 1982-09-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acted reasonably and within its authority in imposing a 60 percent load factor condition on a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a natural gas pipeline system.
• Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  570 F.2d 452· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-06 ·cited 6×
  The FCC's order permitting AT&T to market the Dataspeed 40/4 is sustained because the device was correctly classified as a communications service, and AT&T's tariff submission substantially complied with regulatory requirements.
• Willis Shaw Frozen Express, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  587 F.2d 1333· D.C. Cir.· 1978-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission provided a rational basis supported by substantial evidence for partially denying Shaw's application for common carrier authority and properly refused to take official notice of Shaw's temporary authority.
• Greensboro Television Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  502 F.2d 475· D.C. Cir.· 1974-08-16
  The court held that the FCC's refusal to approve a withdrawal agreement between a renewal applicant and a competing applicant, where the challenger sought reimbursement for expenses, was not arbitrary, especially after the policy statement relied upon was invalidated.