Caiola v. Carroll’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The district court stated, altogether properly, that it would "review the whole record of the administrative action and determine whether that action was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion not in accordance with law." See Caiola v. Carroll, Civ. Action No. 85-3767, slip op. at 6 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 1986); see also Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 , 91 S.Ct. 814, 823 , 28 LEd.2d 136 (1971). While the district court held that the agency's decision was supported by "substantial evidence," we note that the distinction between the "substantial evidence" standard and the "arbitrary and capricious" standard has been described as "largely semantic." See Association of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 745 P2d 677, 688-84 (D.C.Cir.1984) ("[When the arbitrary and capricious standard is performing that function of assuring factual support, there is no substantive difference between what it requires and what would be required by the substantial evidence test, since it is impossible to conceive of a 'nonarbitrary' factual judgment supported only by evidence that is not substantial in the APA sense ...."); see also B. Schwartz, Administrative Law, § 10.15 at 614 (2d ed.1984) (quoting Pell v. Board of Education, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231 , 356 NY.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 (1974) ("Rationality is what is reviewed under both the substantial evidence rule and the arbitrary and capricious standard.")). The c”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Healthalliance Hosps., Inc. v. Azar · Worker's Compensation Claim of Newman v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division

2. “First, the [FAR] regulation was written and promulgated not only by DOD, but by GSA and NASA as well. The diffusion of the interpretive authority among several agencies, and the possibility of inconsistent interpretations, weaken the case for deference. Second, the only agency official to construe FAR 9.406-5(b) was ... the DLA’s debarring official, not the head of the agency. While [the debarring official]’s interpretation is, of course, entitled to a “modicum of respect” in this court, we need not accord it dispositive weight.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 27 Fed. Cl. 405 - MAPCO Alaska Petroleum, Inc. v. United States

3. “[Wjhen the arbitrary and capricious standard is performing that function of assuring factual support, there is no substantive difference between what it requires and what would be required by the substantial evidence test, since it is impossible to conceive of a ‘nonarbitrary’ factual judgment supported only by evidence that is not substantial in the APA sense....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 757 F. Supp. 51 - Textor v. Cheney