portada The Arbitrary and Capricious Standard under the APA (en Inglés)

The Arbitrary and Capricious Standard under the APA (en Inglés)

Formato

Libro Físico

Autor

Landmark Publications

Editorial

Independently Published

Idioma

Inglés

N° páginas

550

Encuadernación

Tapa Blanda

Dimensiones

22.9x15.2x2.8 cm

Peso

0.73 kg.

ISBN13

9781794372719

Categorías

Derecho administrativo y administraciones públicas

The Arbitrary and Capricious Standard under the APA (en Inglés)

Landmark Publications (Autor) · Independently Published · Tapa Blanda

Libro Nuevo Importado

Envío: 20 a 27 días háb.

$ 91.76$ 45.88

-50%

Costos de importación incluídos en el precio ✅

Libro Nuevo

Quedan más de 100 unidades

$ 45.88

Llega entre el 21 Sep y el 02 Oct a Quito, Pichincha. Seleccionar ubicación

Agregar a lista de deseos

Reseña del libro "The Arbitrary and Capricious Standard under the APA (en Inglés)"

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply the arbitrary and capricious standard under the Administrative Procedure Act. * * * Under the APA, courts shall "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). "The scope of review under the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). Nevertheless, the agency must "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action." Turtle Island Restoration Network v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 878 F.3d 725, 732 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We will strike down an agency action as arbitrary and capricious "if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or if the agency's decision is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise." Id. at 732-33 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. US Forest Service, 899 F. 3d 970 (9th Cir. 2018)