ITT Admin

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

ITT Admin

Postby stillwater » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:46 pm

After my ill-fated other topic-oriented threads, I'll keep the name here simple. Anyone else as foolish as I was and taking admin? Let's discuss the lawl.

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: ITT Admin

Postby Tom Joad » Thu Dec 05, 2013 2:59 am

Hey. How is the arbitrary and capricious standard used to evaluate factual determinations in an informal rulemaking or adjudication.

Substantial evidence for formal rulemaking and adjudication makes since to me, but this one confuses me.

User avatar
gaud
Posts: 5790
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:58 am

Re: ITT Admin

Postby gaud » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:05 am

This thread helped me in the spring: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=172414

Good luck. Admin is awful.

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: ITT Admin

Postby Tom Joad » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:18 am

gaud wrote:This thread helped me in the spring: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=172414

Good luck. Admin is awful.

Danka.

redsox550
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:15 am

Re: ITT Admin

Postby redsox550 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:06 am

easily the most annoying and worst and most complicated class ive ever had

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: ITT Admin

Postby stillwater » Thu Dec 05, 2013 1:23 pm

anyone have any good materials on cost-benefit analysis? ive been using the Beermann supplement that Kalvano champions but it's thin to empty of cost-benefit analysis shit.

User avatar
Carlo Von Sexron
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: ITT Admin

Postby Carlo Von Sexron » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:30 pm

Tom Joad wrote:Hey. How is the arbitrary and capricious standard used to evaluate factual determinations in an informal rulemaking or adjudication.

Substantial evidence for formal rulemaking and adjudication makes since to me, but this one confuses me.
From my outline (had a great prof, got an A- on a very tight curve):

State Farm analysis: Where the issue is the agency's fact-finding, the agency will lose only if:
(1) agency entirely fails to consider an "important aspect" of the problem. e.g., regulatory alternatives. 'Important aspect' is made 'important' by the lawyers. Agencies fail to respond to these 'alternatives' at their peril. This was the airbag alternative the Court in State Farm found probative.
OR (2) the agency decision "runs counter" to the evidence before it. (oddly worded standard. The court doesn't weigh the evidence and make a choice, it only asks whether the agency has grappled with the evidence and gives a reason the court can understand. Whether the court actually agrees with the agency's conclusion is irrelevant. The agency loses if it fails to respond to key evidence against its position. 'Key' can mean crucial to the intellectual underpinnings of the agency's standard.

*There are two more factors, but they're dead letter or irrelevant per Chevron: agency relies on 'factors' other than those Congress intended (But this is ACTUALLY 'not-in-accordance with law'. This factor is irrelevant because Chevron takes care of it.) The other dead letter is that the agency decision is "too implausible."


Hope that helps.

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: ITT Admin

Postby Tom Joad » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:35 pm

Thanks bro.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: geo47, Google Adsense [Bot], unsweetened and 11 guests