showing of the relevant factors in New Jersey

2026On review, we consider: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995) (citing Campbell v. Dep't of Civ.

2025To determine whether that high bar is met, appellate courts consider: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995) (citing Campbell, 39 N.J. at 562 ).] In applying th

2026In determining whether agency action is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, a reviewing court must examine: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 (quoting In re Carter, 191

2026Our review is limited to the following inquiries: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Allstars Auto Grp., 234 N.J. at 157 (quoting In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 ).] In reviewing an agency's decision

2026In making that determination, the court will examine: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Id. at 302-03 (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 , 482- 83 (2007)).] "When an agency's decision meets those cri

2026When making that determination, we consider: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Ibid. (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 , 482-83 (2007)).] 2025 order denying the applications of several developers fo

2026More pointedly, our review is limited to determining: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014) (quoting Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 ).] "[A] court owes substantial

2026In making that determination, the court will examine: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Id. at 302-03 (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 , 482- 83 (2007)).] "When an agency's decision meets those cri

2026Our review is limited to the following inquiries: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Allstars Auto Grp., 234 N.J. at 157 (quoting In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 ).] In reviewing an agency's decision

2026In determining if an agency's decision is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, we examine "(1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies," (2) whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the agency's decision, and (3) whether in applying the law to the facts, the agency reached a conclusion "that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors." Allstars Auto Grp., Inc., 234 N.J. at 157 (quoting In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011)).

2026Our review is limited to the following inquiries: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Allstars Auto Grp., 234 N.J. at 157 (quoting In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 ).] In reviewing an agency's decision

2025To determine whether that standard is met, a reviewing court examines: (1) whether the agency’s action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482-83 (2007)).

2026Our review is limited to the following inquiries: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Allstars Auto Grp., 234 N.J. at 157 (quoting In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 ).] In reviewing an agency's decision

2024When making that determination, we are instructed to consider (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Ibid. (citing In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482-83 (2007)).] "In assessing those criteria, a court must be

2025To determine whether that high bar is met, appellate courts consider: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995) (citing Campbell, 39 N.J. at 562 ).] In applying th

2019Although sometimes phrased in terms of a search for arbitrary or unreasonable action, the judicial role is generally restricted to three inquiries: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the A-4150-17T1 3 record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency bases its action; and (3) whether, in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [In

2025Courts generally consider three questions when reviewing agency decisions: (1) whether the agency’s action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [In re Quest Acad., 216 N.J. at 385 (quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995)).]

2025Courts generally consider three questions when reviewing agency decisions: (1) whether the agency’s action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [In re Quest Acad., 216 N.J. at 385 (quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995)).]

2021Therefore, our review of an agency's decision is limited to considering (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency A-1837-19 4 follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Id. at 385-86 (quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995)).] We must aff

2021Our review of an agency's decision is limited to considering (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Id. at 385-86 (quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995)).] We are required to affirm an agenc

2019In general, our review of a final agency decision is limited to four inquiries: (1) whether the agency's decision offends the State or Federal Constitution; (2) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies; (3) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (4) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [In Re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999) (quoting B

2017When reviewing an agency's decision, we consider whether: (1) the agency's decision violates the New Jersey Constitution or the Constitution of the United States; (2) "the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies;" (3) there is substantial evidence to support the findings of fact upon which the decision is based; and (4) "in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors." Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210-11 (1997) 5 A-3833-14T1 (quot

2026Co. v. Bureau of Sec., 64 N.J. 85, 93 (1973)).

2017Our inquiry is limited to: (1) whether the agency's action violated the legislative policies expressed or implied in the act governing the agency; (2) whether the evidence in the record substantially 4 A-3324-14T4 supports the findings on which the agency's actions were premised; and (3) "whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors." [Barrick v. State, 218 N.J. 247, 260 (2014) (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482 (2007)).] We owe no deference to an

2023Assistance & Health Servs., 407 N.J.

2022Assistance & Health Servs., 407 N.J.

2025To determine whether an agency's A-3108-23 4 action is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, a reviewing court examines the following factors: (1) "whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies;" (2) "whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action;" and (3) "whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors." Ibid. (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 , 482-83 (2007

2025We will disturb an agency's decision only if we determine that the decision is "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable" or is unsupported "by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." In determining whether an agency action is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, we examine: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the

2026Appellate courts focus on the following three inquiries when addressing the validity of an agency decision: (1) whether the agency’s action violates express or implied legislative policies, i.e., did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. 16 [Trantino v. State Parole Bd. (Trantino IV), 154 N.J. 19 ,

2026Therefore, a parole decision cannot be sustained if it “either violates legislative policy, is not supported by ‘substantial evidence’ in the record, or ‘could not reasonably have been made 17 on a showing of the relevant factors.’” Ibid. (citing Trantino IV, 154 N.J. at 24-25).

2020As we have noted, [t]he judicial role when reviewing an action of an administrative agency is generally restricted to three inquiries: 19 (1) whether the agency’s action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency bases its action; and (3) whether, in applying the legislative policy to the facts, the agency erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Jersey City Police Officers Benevolen

2020As we have noted, [t]he judicial role when reviewing an action of an administrative agency is generally restricted to three inquiries: 19 (1) whether the agency’s action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency bases its action; and (3) whether, in applying the legislative policy to the facts, the agency erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Jersey City Police Officers Benevolen

2025A-3045-22 7 To determine whether an agency action is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, a reviewing court must examine: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Ibid. (quoting Carter, 191 N.J. at 482-83

2025To determine if an agency decision is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, a court examines: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [In re Ambroise, 258 N.J. 180 , 198 (2024) (quoting In re Carter, 191 N

2025We consider whether the Board followed the law, there was substantial evidence to support its findings, and whether in applying the law to the facts the Board "clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors." Trantino I, 154 N.J. at 24 (citing Brady v. Dep't of Pers., 149 N.J. 244, 256 (1997)).

2025We consider whether the Board followed the law, there was substantial evidence to support its findings, and in applying the law to the facts, the Board "clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors." Trantino I, 154 N.J. at 24 (citing Brady v. Dep't of Pers., 149 N.J. 244, 256 (1997)).

2026More pointedly, our review is limited to determining: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014) (quoting Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 ).] "[A] court owes substantial

2025Therefore, Jersey Shore must demonstrate that the DEP's denial of its request for an adjudicatory hearing was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, meaning the denial: (1) . . . violate[d] express or implied legislative policies, that is, . . . the agency [did not] follow the law; (2) . . . the record [did not] contain[] substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) . . . in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors.

2026Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018) (quoting In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011)).] To determine whether an agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we may not "engage in an independent assessment of the evidence as if [we] were the court of first instance." In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999)).

2025Grp., 234 N.J. at 157 (quoting Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 ).] To determine whether an agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we may not "engage in an independent assessment of the evidence as if it were the court of first instance." In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999)).

2025Charter Sch. of Montclair Founders Grp., 216 N.J. 370, 385 (2013) (quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995)).] Moreover, "[i]f [we are] satisfied after [our] review that the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom support the agency head's decision, then [we] must affirm even if [we] feel[] that [we] would have reached a different result ." Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 588 (1988).

2001The scope of review is restricted to four inquiries: (1) whether the agency's decision offends the State or Federal Constitution; (2) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies; (3) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (4) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [ Ibid. (quoting Brady v. Board of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210-11 , 704 A. 2d 5

2026Super. at 156 (alteration in original) (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 , 482-83 (2007)).] Moreover, "we defer to an agency's expertise." Ibid. "[W]here there is substantial evidence in the record to support more than one regulatory conclusion, 'it is the agency's choice which governs.'" Murray v. State Health Benefits Comm'n, 337 N.J.

2022See Murray v. State Health Benefits Comm'n, 337 N.J.

2020The judicial inquiry into whether an administrative agency action was arbitrary or capricious is restricted to three inquiries: (1) whether the agency's action violates the enabling act's express or implied legislative policies; (2) whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts the agency clearly erred by reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made upon a showing of the relevant factors. [In re Petitions for Rulemaking, N.J.A.C. 10:82-1.2 & 10

2019We consider: (1) whether the agency's action violates the enabling act's express or implied legislative policies; (2) whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts the agency clearly erred by reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made upon a showing of the relevant factors. [ Ibid. (quoting In re Petitions for Rulemaking, N.J.A.C. 10:82-1.2 & 10:85-4.1 , 117 N.J. 311 , 325, 566 A.2d 1154 (1989) ).] Adopted regulations are ordinarily not decla

2025The judicial role in reviewing administrative action is generally limited to three inquiries: (1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Allstars, 234 N.J. at 157 (quoting In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (

2025See Hendrickson, 235 N.J. at 150 .

2026Therefore, a parole decision cannot be sustained if it “either violates legislative policy, is not supported by ‘substantial evidence’ in the record, or ‘could not reasonably have been made 17 on a showing of the relevant factors.’” Ibid. (citing Trantino IV, 154 N.J. at 24-25).

2025A Board decision will not be sustained if it violates legislative policy, is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, or "could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors." Ibid. (quoting Trantino IV, 154 N.J. at 24).

2007The judiciary's role consists of three inquiries: (1) whether the agency action violates the enabling act's express or implied legislative policies; (2) whether there is *912 substantial evidence in the record to support the findings upon which the agency based application of legislative policies; and (3) whether, in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred by reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made upon a showing of the relevant factors. [ Ibid. ] Courts should give deference to an agency's interpretation and implementation of its regulat

2000Under that standard, our review is restricted to the following three inquiries: (1) whether the agency action violates the enabling act's express or implied legislative policies; (2) whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings upon which the agency based application of legislative policies; and (3) whether, in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred by reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made upon a showing of the relevant factors. [ Public Serv., supra, 101 N.J. at 103 , 501 A. 2d 125 .] This deference is a