green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
6.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1991 ·
…this court will not disturb the agency's choice unless the severity of its action appears totally unwarranted in light of the relevant factors.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Alton T. Webster v. Department of the Army
(2×)
this court will not disturb the agency's choice unless the severity of its action appears totally unwarranted in light of the relevant factors.
discussed
Cited "see"
V.H. v. Estate of Birnbaum
See Crosson v. Conlee, 745 F.2d 896 (4th Cir.1984) (stating that the Virginia long-arm statute removed the common law prohibition against suing executors in a state other than that of their appointment), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1054 , 105 S.Ct. 1759 , 84 L.Ed.2d 822 (1985); Texair Flyers, Inc. v. Dist.
discussed
Cited "see"
Minnie L. Henry v. Department of the Navy
See DeWitt v. Department of the Navy, 747 F.2d 1442, 1445 (Fed.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1054 , 105 S.Ct. 1759 , 84 L.Ed.2d 822 (1985). 4 In this case, the agency considered the petitioner’s prior reprimand, the impact of her action upon her working relationship with her supervisors, her potential for rehabilitation, the table of penalties, as well as her good record of duty performance.
discussed
Cited "see"
LCP, Inc. v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
See United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 550 , 95 S.Ct. 710, 714 , 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974) (“vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand”). 2 In a due process vagueness challenge, the inquiry is whether the statute provides “explicit standards so that the law gives ‘the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited,’ and prevents ‘arbitrary and discriminatory applications.’ ” Nova University v. Educational Institution Licensure Commission, 483 A.2…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Donald C. Newton v. Department of the Air Force
(2×)
As for the Air Force’s choice of penalty in the instant case, it is well-established that, on appeal, the AJ’s “affirmance of the agency’s choice of penalty will not be disturbed unless it is so harsh and inappropriate as to exceed the agency’s discretionary authority.” Carosella, 816 F.2d at 643 ; see also DeWitt v. Department of the Navy, 747 F.2d 1442, 1445 (Fed.Cir.1984) (“This court will not disturb the agency’s choice [of penalty] unless the severity of its action appears totally unwarranted in light of the relevant factors.”), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1054 , 105 S.Ct. 17…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Snyder
v.
Ohio State Medical Board
v.
Ohio State Medical Board
No. 84-1334.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 18, 1985.
Published
Citer courts: Federal Circuit (2) · E.D. Virginia (1)
Ct. App. Ohio, Summit County. Certiorari denied.