6 Va. App. 231 - Johnston-Willis, Ltd. v. Kenley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

287 state decisions

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 289 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “However, where the question involves an interpretation which is within the specialized competence of the agency and the agency has been entrusted with wide discretion by the General Assembly, the agency’s decision is entitled to special weight in the courts[, and] ... “ ‘judicial interference is permissible only for relief against the arbitrary or capricious action that constitutes a clear abuse of delegated discretion.’ ””

   17 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chesapeake Hospital Authority v. Department of Medical Assistance Services · 9 Va. App. 152 - Virginia Real Estate Board v. Clay

2. “Where the issue is whether there is substantial evidence to support findings of fact, great deference is to be accorded the agency decision. Where the issue falls outside the specialized competence of the agency, such as constitutional and statutory interpretation issues, little deference is required to be accorded the agency decision. Where, however, the issue concerns an agency decision based on the proper application of its expert discretion, the reviewing court will not substitute its own independent judgment for that of the agency but rather will reverse the agency decision only if that decision was arbitrary and capricious. Finally, in reviewing an agency decision, the courts are required to consider the experience and specialized competence of the agency and the purposes of the basic law under which the agency acted.”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Anne G. Shropshire v. Virginia Retirement System · 33 Va. App. 473 - Department of Professional & Occupational Regulation v. Abateco Services, Inc.

3. “[A]gency findings of fact are to be accorded great deference under the substantial evidence standard of review. However, when deciding whether an agency has followed proper procedures or complied with statutory authority ..., an inquiry into whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support findings of fact of an agency is wholly inappropriate. Indeed, even though an agency’s findings of fact may be supported by substantial evidence in the record, it may be subject to reversal because the agency failed to observe required procedures or to comply -with statutory authority. See, e.g., Atkinson v. Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, 1 Va.App. 172 , 336 S.E.2d 527 (1985). Thus, where the legal issues require a determination by the reviewing court whether an agency has, for example, accorded constitutional rights, failed to comply with statutory authority, or failed to observe required procedures, less deference is required and the reviewing courts should not abdicate their judicial function and merely rubber-stamp an agency determination.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Virginia Imports Ltd. v. Kirin Brewery of America, LLC · 33 Va. App. 473 - Department of Professional & Occupational Regulation v. Abateco Services, Inc.