Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Wilsongreen2 sentences2012Standard of Review Former § 16-24-10(b) provided that “Itjhe decision of the hearing officer shall be affirmed on appeal unless the Court of Civil Appeals finds the decision arbitrary and capricious, in which case the court may order that the parties conduct another hearing consistent with the procedures of this article.” If this court determines that the hearing officer’s decision failed to follow the applicable law, however, it “ha[s] the authority to reverse the decision ... because the failure to follow the applicable law renders the hearing officer’s decision arbitrary and capricious.” Ex 2008Standard of Review Section 16-24-10(b), Ala.Code 1975, provides that “[t]he decision of the hearing officer shall be affirmed on appeal unless the Court of Civil Appeals finds the decision arbitrary and capricious, in which case the court may order that the parties conduct another hearing consistent with the procedures of this article.” “The Court of Civil Appeals [has] the authority to reverse the decision of the hearing officer for failing to follow the applicable law, because the failure to follow the applicable law renders the hearing officer’s decision arbitrary and capricious.” Ex parte | 2 | 2 |
Montgomery County Board of Education v. Webbgreen1 sentence2012See also Ex parte Webb, 53 So.3d 121, 127 (Ala.2009). | 1 | 1 |
American Bankers Life Assurance Co. v. RICE ACCEPTANCE CO., INC.green1 sentence2010American Bankers Life Assurance Co. v. Rice Acceptance Co., 739 So.2d 1082, 1084 (Ala.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Montgomery County Department of Human Resources v. C.R.green1 sentence2009In Bishop State, this court "reverse[d] the hearing officer's decision and remand[ed] the cause to the original hearing officer. " 4 So.3d at 1162 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Bishop State Community College v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2009In Bishop State, this court “reversefd] the hearing officer’s decision and remand[ed] the cause to the original hearing officer.” 4 So.3d at 1162 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Alabama Bd. of Exm'rs in Counselinggreen1 sentence2008In an FDA case, the hearing officer’s statutory authority — and thus his subject-matter jurisdiction, see Ex parte Alabama Bd. of Exam’rs in Counseling, 796 So.2d 355, 358 (Ala.2000) — is derived from two provisions of the FDA, § 36-26-102, Ala. Code 1975, and § 36-26-104(a), Ala.Code 1975. | 1 | 1 |
Alabama Dept. of Human Resources v. Dyegreen1 sentence2006Section 16-24-10(b), Ala.Code 1975, provides that "[t]he decision of the hearing officer shall be affirmed on appeal unless the Court of Civil Appeals finds the decision arbitrary and capricious, in which case the court may order that the parties conduct another hearing consistent with the procedures of this article." The statute mandates an extremely deferential standard of review for a hearing officer's decision in a teacher-tenure case. "`The scope of review under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard is "narrow, and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the [tribunal whos | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Soleyn
green
2 sentences2012Ex parte Soleyn, 33 So.3d 584 , 587 (Ala.2009). 2010Ex parte Soleyn, 33 So.3d 584 , 587 (Ala.2009). | 2 | 2010–2012 |
Madison County Bd. of Educ. v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2008In pertinent part, § 16-24-10(b) provides that "[t]he decision of the hearing officer shall be affirmed on appeal unless the Court of Civil Appeals finds the decision arbitrary and capricious, in which case the court may order that the parties conduct another hearing consistent with the procedures of this article." Because this court found the hearing officer's order to be arbitrary and capricious, we "reverse[d] the hearing officer's decision and remand[ed] the cause for the parties to conduct another hearing consistent with the provisions of the Teacher Tenure Act." Wilson, 984 So.2d at 1160 2008In pertinent part, § 16-24-10(b) provides that “[t]he decision of the hearing officer shall be affirmed on appeal unless the Court of Civil Appeals finds the decision arbitrary and capricious, in which case the court may order that the parties conduct another hearing consistent with the procedures of this article.” Because this court found the hearing officer’s order to be arbitrary and capricious, we “reverse[d] the hearing officer’s decision and re-mandfed] the cause for the parties to conduct another hearing consistent with the provisions of the Teacher Tenure Act.” Wilson, 984 So.2d at 116 | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Prometheus Radio Project v. Federal Communications Commission
green
1 sentence2006Section 16-24-10(b), Ala.Code 1975, provides that "[t]he decision of the hearing officer shall be affirmed on appeal unless the Court of Civil Appeals finds the decision arbitrary and capricious, in which case the court may order that the parties conduct another hearing consistent with the procedures of this article." The statute mandates an extremely deferential standard of review for a hearing officer's decision in a teacher-tenure case. "`The scope of review under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard is "narrow, and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the [tribunal whos | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.