de novo review

Under this term, visitors will discover informative content discussing the legal concept of a new review by an appellate court, where a case is reviewed without deference to the previous court’s findings. Explore resources explaining how this standard of review impacts appeals, and gain insights into its application in civil and criminal cases. Dive into video interviews with attorneys who specialize in appellate law, providing expert perspectives on navigating this complex legal process.

How does the arbitrary and capricious standard differ from other standards of review?

Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Federal Law, Government Relations, Judicial Misconduct, Legal Commentary, Legal Identity, Legal Liability, Legal Procedures, Legal Resolution / Jack Gilbert

The arbitrary and capricious standard is a deferential review that upholds an agency decision unless it lacks a rational basis in the record or ignores key facts. Unlike de novo or substantial evidence review, courts do not reweigh evidence and instead look for reasoned decision-making. This article compares it to other standards and explains when […]

How does the arbitrary and capricious standard differ from other standards of review? Read More »

Understanding the burden of proof in arbitrary and capricious claims

In most arbitrary-and-capricious challenges, the party contesting the decision bears the burden of proof and must show the agency lacked a rational basis under the administrative record. Courts give deference and usually uphold the decision if it is reasonably explained and supported by evidence. This article explains what must be proven, what record is reviewed,