Presumption Of Reviewability

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

• Nat'l Automatic Laundry & Cleaning Council v. Shultz
  443 F.2d 689· D.C. Cir.· 1971-03-31 ·cited 168×
  The court held that while jurisdiction existed for judicial review of the Administrator's interpretation, the Administrator's interpretation of the 1966 FLSA amendments was correct on the merits.
• Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  534 F.2d 541· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-26 ·cited 55×
  The court held that employers are not strictly liable for employee non-compliance with specific safety standards when such non-compliance is predictable and uniform, and that the Commission has jurisdiction to consider the validity of a standard in an enforcement proceeding.
• James v. Aquavella and Salmon Harvey
  437 F.2d 397· 2d Cir.· 1971-01-25 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to review the Secretary's suspension of Medicare payments to a provider, as the Medicare Act did not preclude such review and the suspension constituted final agency action.
• Curran v. Laird
  420 F.2d 122· D.C. Cir.· 1969-11-12 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the summary judgment denying an injunction, but disagreed on the standing of one party to challenge the National Defense Reserve Fleet Act. The majority found the matter committed to agency discretion, while the dissent argued for broader standing based on inju
• Cnty. OF Alameda v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  520 F.2d 344· 9th Cir.· 1975-06-19 ·cited 46×
  A final determination of disallowance under the Social Security Act is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.
• Hayes Int'l Corp. v. McLUCAS
  509 F.2d 247· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-06 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a disappointed bidder has standing to challenge a government contract award based on alleged violations of conflict of interest regulations, and that the agency's interpretation of its own regulations is subject to judicial review.
• Peoples GAS v. United States Postal Serv.
  658 F.2d 1182· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-18 ·cited 38×
  The court held that Postal Service procurement decisions are subject to judicial review and that Peoples Gas had standing to challenge the decision. However, the court reversed the preliminary injunction, finding the district court erred in its application of standing principles.
• DOE v. Casey
  796 F.2d 1508· D.C. Cir.· 1986-08-01 ·cited 36×
  While section 102(c) terminations are judicially reviewable, the court must give deference to the Director's judgment, requiring concrete evidence of an impermissible basis for termination before demanding an explanation.
• PBW Stock Exch., Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  485 F.2d 718· 3d Cir.· 1973-09-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the substance of the SEC's action, not its label as a 'rule' or 'order,' determines whether it is reviewable under Section 25(a) of the Exchange Act.
• Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker
  953 F.2d 1498· 11th Cir.· 1992-02-04 ·cited 33×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's preliminary injunctions against the repatriation of Haitian refugees interdicted at sea by the U.S. Coast Guard. The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not authorize judicial review of interdiction and repatria
• Carlton L. Owens v. Brock
  860 F.2d 1363· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the benefit determination at issue was not an 'adversary adjudication' under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
• Potomac Passengers Ass'n v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. & Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
  475 F.2d 325· D.C. Cir.· 1973-01-05 ·cited 24×
  Injured and aggrieved parties have standing to seek injunctions against violations of the Rail Passenger Service Act, despite the Act's specific provisions for the Attorney General and employees.
• Nat'l Treas. Emps. Union v. Campbell
  589 F.2d 669· D.C. Cir.· 1978-11-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing claims for lack of jurisdiction and that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, specifically 5 U.S.C. § 8912, provides jurisdiction for suits challenging rates negotiated under the Act. It also held that summary judgm
• John P. Gallo, M.D. v. Mathews
  538 F.2d 1148· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-17 ·cited 21×
  The Administrative Procedure Act provides a basis for jurisdiction, but the case must be dismissed because there was no final agency action.
• Gen. Acct. Off. v. Gen. Acct. Off. Pers. Appeals Bd.
  698 F.2d 516· D.C. Cir.· 1983-01-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the GAO is a "person" entitled to seek judicial review of PAB decisions and that the PAB's General Counsel has statutory authority to represent employees in adverse action appeals.
• Dugan v. Arch Ramsay
  727 F.2d 192· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Office of Personnel Management's practice of refusing to count trial preparation days for cases that settle before trial is arbitrary and capricious, and that the district court erred in dismissing the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
• The Timken Co. v. Simon
  539 F.2d 221· D.C. Cir.· 1976-07-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Secretary of the Treasury does not have statutory authority under the Antidumping Act to terminate a withholding of appraisement notice prior to publishing a dumping finding, even if the International Trade Commission's determination is based on a 'likelih
• Ctr. FOR Auto Safety v. Nat'l Hwy. Traffic Safety Admin.
  710 F.2d 842· D.C. Cir.· 1983-06-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the agency's withdrawal of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking concerning fuel economy standards is an action committed to agency discretion by law and is therefore not subject to judicial review.
• Pitzak v. Off. OF Pers. Mgmt.
  710 F.2d 1476· 10th Cir.· 1983-07-14 ·cited 13×
  The court held that while factual determinations of disability are not judicially reviewable, procedural and constitutional claims regarding agency action are subject to review.
• Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  882 F.2d 287· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-18 ·cited 12×
  A regional EPA policy statement concerning dioxin discharges from paper mills is not a reviewable final agency action under the Clean Water Act.
• Hamid R. Kashani v. Nelson
  793 F.2d 818· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 12×
  The district court correctly dismissed the complaint because it lacked jurisdiction to review the District Director's denial of an individual asylum application, as such review would permit dilatory tactics contrary to congressional intent.
• Wilmington United Neighborhoods v. United States Dep't OF Health
  615 F.2d 112· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that judicial review of a Designated Planning Agency's (DPA) approval of a capital expenditure is not statutorily barred by § 1122(f), as that section only precludes review of the Secretary's determination regarding exclusions from federal payments.
• Bethesda Hosp. v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  810 F.2d 558· 6th Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the 1986 Malpractice Rule did not moot the case and that the district court correctly found the PRRB lacked jurisdiction over claims where hospitals self-disallowed costs without adequately presenting a dispute to the fiscal intermediary.
• Banzhaf v. Smith
  737 F.2d 1167· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Ethics in Government Act precludes judicial review at the behest of members of the public regarding the Attorney General's decisions not to investigate or seek appointment of an independent counsel.
• Ronald v. Dellums
  797 F.2d 817· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that private citizens lack standing to seek judicial review of the Attorney General's refusal to conduct a preliminary investigation under the Ethics in Government Act.
• Ruff v. Hodel
  770 F.2d 839· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the statutory language of the Klamath Judgment Distribution Act, which makes the Secretary of the Interior's findings and determinations regarding heirship "final and conclusive," precludes judicial review of such decisions.
• Chevron OIL Co. v. Andrus
  588 F.2d 1383· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-09 ·cited 9×
  The Department of the Interior's regulations do not bind the Secretary to abide by a regional manager's unreviewed decision to accept oil and gas lease bids, and the Secretary's rejection of bids is subject to judicial review.
• Chaney v. Heckler
  724 F.2d 1030· D.C. Cir.· 1984-01-17 ·cited 8×
  The court denied the appellee's suggestion for rehearing en banc.
• Howes Leather Co., Inc. v. Carmen
  680 F.2d 818· D.C. Cir.· 1982-06-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the disappointed bidder had standing and stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, reversing the district court's dismissal.
• John P. Gallo, M.D. v. Mathews
  534 F.2d 1137· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the Administrative Procedure Act provides a basis for jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed because there was no final agency action to review.
• Ctr. FOR Auto Safety v. Dole
  828 F.2d 799· D.C. Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 7×
  Denials of petitions to investigate alleged safety defects under 15 U.S.C. § 1410a are subject to judicial review under the APA to ensure NHTSA acts according to its 'reasonable possibility' standard and that its findings are not arbitrary or capricious.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bank OF Coushatta
  930 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the issuance of a capital directive by the FDIC is an action committed to agency discretion by law and thus unreviewable under the APA, and that the procedures provided satisfy Fifth Amendment due process requirements.
• Masters v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co. (In Re Lykes Bros. S.S. Co.)
  200 B.R. 933· M.D. Fla.· 1996-09-27 ·cited 3×
  The Bankruptcy Court erred in concluding it lacked authority to review the United States Trustee's appointment of committee members.
• Aminta Drake v. Panama Canal Comm'n
  907 F.2d 532· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-02 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Panama Canal Act precludes judicial review for claims arising from the operation of the Canal or related facilities, and thus the APA does not waive sovereign immunity for such claims.
• Env't Def. Fund v. Reilly
  909 F.2d 1497· D.C. Cir.· 1990-07-27
  The court held that appellants, having pursued their Section 21 remedy to a settlement, could not subsequently resort to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for review of the agency's denial of their petition for rulemaking.
• Bayonet Point Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  516 So. 2d 995· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-11-24
  Bayonet Point Regional Medical Center appealed the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' denial of its certificate of need application for a cardiac catheterization laboratory and open-heart surgery service. The court found HRS's decision arbitrary and capricious beca
• Falkowski v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n
  783 F.2d 252· D.C. Cir.· 1986-02-18
  The court held that the Attorney General's decision to provide counsel to federal employees is committed to agency discretion by law and is therefore unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Cleo Darlene Clark v. United States
  482 F.2d 586· 8th Cir.· 1973-08-01
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the National Service Life Insurance (NSLI) claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the relevant statutes provide for judicial review.