558 So. 2d 1149 - Pardue v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2016
16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on 495 So. 2d 1298 - McLean v. Hunter · Bloxom v. Bloxom · Buras v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension · Town of Sulphur v. Stanley · Clement v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVELOPMENT
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. type, nature, and location of use; 2. elevation, soil, and water conditions and flood and storm hazard characteristics of site; 3. techniques and materials used in construction, operation, and maintenance of use; 4. existing drainage patterns and water regimes of surrounding area including flow, circulation, quality, quantity, and salinity; and impacts on them; 5. availability of feasible alternative sites or methods of implementing the use; 6. designation of the area for certain uses as part of a local program; 7. economic need for use and extent of impacts of use on economy of locality; 8. extent of resulting public and private benefits; 9. extent of coastal water dependency of the use; 10. existence of necessary infrastructure to support the use and public costs resulting from use; il.extent of impacts on existing and traditional uses of the area and on future uses for which the area is suited; 12. proximity to and extent of impacts on important natural features such as beaches, barrier islands, tidal passes, wildlife and aquatic habitats, and forest lands; 13. the extent to which regional, state, and national interests are served including the national interest in resources and the siting of facilities in the coastal zone as identified in the coastal resources program; 14. proximity to, and extent of impacts on, special areas, particular areas, or other areas of particular concern of the state program or local programs; 15. likelihood of, and extent of impacts of, resu”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In those guidelines in which the modifier "maximum extent practicable” is used, the proposed use is in compliance with the guideline if the standard modified by the term is complied with. If the modified standard is not complied with, the use will be in compliance with the guideline if the permitting authority finds, after a systematic consideration of all pertinent information regarding the use, the site and the impacts of the use as set forth in Subsection F above, and a balancing of their relative significance, that the benefits resulting from the proposed use would clearly outweigh the adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the modified standard and there are no feasible and practical alternative locations, methods, and practices for the use that are in compliance with the modified standard and: a. significant public benefits will result from the use; or b. the use would serve important regional, state, or national interests, including the national interest in resources and the siting of facilities in the coastal zone identified in the coastal resources program, or; c. the use is coastal water dependent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“These provisions defining the nature and scope of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act do not authorize a trial de novo in the reviewing court. To the contrary, it is clear that the review "shall be confined to the record" as established before the agency. If the reviewing court were allowed to hear such matters de novo and substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency, it would be usurping the power delegated by the legislature to the administrative agency. It should also be noted that the Administrative Procedure Act, properly complied with, operates to the advantage of both the parties and the courts. It enables the parties to resolve their disputes in a less cumbersome and expensive manner than normally encountered at a trial in court. At the same time, the courts are relieved of the time-consuming task of hearing the evidence. It further permits the administrative agency to weigh and evaluate the evidence with proper respect being given to its expertise in the matter. Additionally, it promotes the uniform application of the statute under which the agency operates.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.