intermediate standard in Utah

2017See Lucas v. Murray City Civil Service Comm’n, 949 P.2d 746, 758 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (“The Commission’s findings, upon which the charges are based, must be supported by substantial evidence [when] viewed in light of the whole record before us.”). ¶ 15 Further, we review “an agency’s application of its own rules for reasonableness and rationality, according the agency some, but not total[,] deference.” Lunnen, 886 P.2d at 72 ; see also Kent, 860 P.2d at 986 (“In construing [Utah Code section 63G-4-403], the Utah Supreme Court has held that appellate courts should employ an intermediate standar

2010Utah Supreme Court has held that appellate courts should employ an intermediate standard, one of some, but not total, deference, in reviewing an agency's application of its own rules." Kent v. Department of Emp't See., 860 P.2d 984, 986 (Utah Ct.App.1998).

1999We have previously held that the statute’s “grant of discretion to the Commission to apply the law requires that we apply an intermediate standard of review to its determinations.” Osman Home Improvement v. Industrial Comm’n, 958 P.2d 240, 243 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (citing Caporoz v. Labor Comm’n, 945 P.2d 141, 143 (Utah Ct.App.1997)).

1998This court has previously concluded that the statute’s “grant of discretion to the Commission to apply the law requires that we apply an intermediate standard of review to its determinations.” Osman Home Improvement v. Industrial Comm’n, 958 P.2d 240, 243 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) (citing Caporoz v. Labor Comm’n, 945 P.2d 141, 143 (Utah Ct.App.1997)).

1993R.R. v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 842 P.2d 876, 879 (Utah 1992) (citation omitted); accord SEMECO Indus., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 849 P.2d 1167, 1174 (Utah 1993) (Durham, J., dissenting).

1993R.R. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 842 P.2d 876, 879 (Utah 1992) (citation omitted); accord SEMECO Indus., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 849 P.2d 1167, 1174 (Utah 1993) (Durham, J., dissenting).

2012Under this intermediate standard, an agency's decisions were "entitled to weight, but ... subject to judicial review to assure that they [fell] within the limits of reasonableness or rationality." Id. at 610 . 11 UAPA provided a new framework for determining the standard of review.

1989The Administrative Services case explains why statutory interpretations, which ordinarily pose questions of law, are often reviewed under this intermediate standard: An agency’s interpretation of key provisions of the statute it is empowered to administer is often inseparable from its application of the rules of law to the basic facts_ In reviewing decisions such as these, a court should afford great deference to the technical expertise or more extensive experience of the responsible agency. 658 P.2d at 610 (emphasis added).

2013See Westside Dixon Assocs., LLC v. Utah Power & Light Co./Pacificorp, 2002 UT 31, ¶ 7 , 44 P.3d 775 (holding that the court applies an intermediate standard of review when considering an agency’s interpretation of its own rules, “deferring to an agency’s interpretation as long as it is both reasonable and rational”).

2013See Westside Dixon Assocs., LLC v. Utah Power & Light Co./Pacificorp, 2002 UT 31, ¶ 7 , 44 P.3d 775 (holding that the court applies an intermediate standard of review when considering an agency’s interpretation of its own rules, “deferring to an agency’s interpretation as long as it is both reasonable and rational”).

1999We have previously held that the statute’s “grant of discretion to the Commission to apply the law requires that we apply an intermediate standard of review to its determinations.” Osman Home Improvement v. Industrial Comm’n, 958 P.2d 240, 243 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (citing Caporoz v. Labor Comm’n, 945 P.2d 141, 143 (Utah Ct.App.1997)).

1998This court has previously concluded that the statute’s “grant of discretion to the Commission to apply the law requires that we apply an intermediate standard of review to its determinations.” Osman Home Improvement v. Industrial Comm’n, 958 P.2d 240, 243 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) (citing Caporoz v. Labor Comm’n, 945 P.2d 141, 143 (Utah Ct.App.1997)).

1998See State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 938 (Utah 1994) (stating that "policy reasons" can require court to limit discretion afforded lower court).

1998“Under the correction-of-error standard, this court affords no deference to the agency’s interpretation or application of statutory terms.” Allred, 914 P.2d at 1174 . *345 Whether the Board erred in.refusing to revoke EG & G’s permit in light of accidents and mishaps at TOCDF involves the Board’s application of law to fact, see Drake v. Industrial Comm’n, 939 P.2d 177 , 181 & n. 6 (Utah 1997); State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 937-939 (Utah 1994), subject to the intermediate standard of review we discussed above.

1998See Nucor Corp. v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 832 P.2d 1294, 1296 (Utah 1992) (stating “[a]gen-cy discretion may be either express or implied and, if granted, results in review of the agency action for an abuse of discretion”); Caporoz, 945 P.2d at 143 .

1993See also SEMECO Indus., Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 849 P.2d 1167, 1171-72 (Utah 1993) (Durham, J., dissenting); Nucor Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 832 P.2d 1294, 1296-97 (Utah 1992); Morton, 814 P.2d at 587 .

1993See, e.g., Taylor v. Utah State Training School, 775 P.2d 432, 434-35 (Utah App.1989) (pre-UAPA case noting "[t]he more likely it is that agency expertise will assist in resolving an issue, the more deference courts should give to the agency's resolution").

1993See, e.g., Taylor v. Utah State Training School, 775 P.2d 432, 434-35 (Utah App.1989) (pre-UAPA case noting “[t]he more likely it is that agency expertise will assist in resolving an issue, the more deference courts should give to the agency’s resolution”).

1989See, e.g., City of Orem v. Christensen, 682 P.2d 292, 294 (Utah 1984) (court reviewed the Board’s decision that employee’s conduct was culpable under the reasonableness and rationality standard).

1985City of Orem v. Christensen, Utah, 682 P.2d 292, 293 (1983).

2012See Morton Int'l, 814 P.2d at 583-84 ; Columbia HCA v. Labor Comm'n, 2011 UT App 210, ¶ 8 , 258 P.3d 640 (mem.) ("The Utah Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) determines the standard of review for a formal adjudicative hearing.").

1992Finally, an intermediate standard of review, “granting some deference to the agency’s decisions, has been used when the agency’s experience or expertise puts the agency in a better position to resolve issues concerning the application of findings of fact to the legal rules governing the case.” Morton, 814 P.2d at 586 ; accord Admin.

1991In Pro-Benefit Staffing v. Board of Review, 775 P.2d 439, 442 (Utah App.1989), this court held that the intermediate standard of review of reasonableness, previously applied by the Utah Supreme Court to judicial review of an agency’s determination of mixed questions of fact and law or to an agency’s “interpretation of the operative provisions of the statutory law it is empowered to administer,” id. (quoting Utah Dep’t. of Admin.

1991In Pro-Benefit Staffing v. Board of Review, 775 P.2d 439, 442 (Utah App.1989), this court held that the intermediate standard of review of reasonableness, previously applied by the Utah Supreme Court to judicial review of an agency’s determination of mixed questions of fact and law or to an agency’s “interpretation of the operative provisions of the statutory law it is empowered to administer,” id. (quoting Utah Dep’t. of Admin.

2013"An agency's interpretation and application of law is generally reviewed for correctness, but when the [Utah] Legislature has granted the agency discretion to interpret or apply the law, we apply an intermediate standard of review." Dorsey v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2012 UT App 364, ¶ 9 , 294 P.3d 580 .

2013"An agency's interpretation and application of law is generally reviewed for correctness, but when the [Utah] Legislature has granted the agency discretion to interpret or apply the law, we apply an intermediate standard of review." Dorsey v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2012 UT App 364, ¶ 9 , 294 P.3d 580 .

2017See Lucas v. Murray City Civil Service Comm’n, 949 P.2d 746, 758 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (“The Commission’s findings, upon which the charges are based, must be supported by substantial evidence [when] viewed in light of the whole record before us.”). ¶ 15 Further, we review “an agency’s application of its own rules for reasonableness and rationality, according the agency some, but not total[,] deference.” Lunnen, 886 P.2d at 72 ; see also Kent, 860 P.2d at 986 (“In construing [Utah Code section 63G-4-403], the Utah Supreme Court has held that appellate courts should employ an intermediate standar

2017See Lucas v. Murray City Civil Service Comm’n, 949 P.2d 746, 758 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (“The Commission’s findings, upon which the charges are based, must be supported by substantial evidence [when] viewed in light of the whole record before us.”). ¶ 15 Further, we review “an agency’s application of its own rules for reasonableness and rationality, according the agency some, but not total[,] deference.” Lunnen, 886 P.2d at 72 ; see also Kent, 860 P.2d at 986 (“In construing [Utah Code section 63G-4-403], the Utah Supreme Court has held that appellate courts should employ an intermediate standar

2016But as our supreme court has explained "legal errors, such as the incorrect interpretation of a statute or the application of an improper legal standard, are usually an abuse of discretion." Schroeder v. Utah Attorney General's Office, 2015 UT 77, ¶ 49 , 358 P.3d 1075 ; accord Snow, Christensen & Martineau v. Lindberg, 2013 UT 15, ¶ 17 , 209 P.3d 1058 , Accordingly, we review an agency's interpretation of its own rules under an intermediate standard, deferring to the agency's interpretation only so long as it is both reasonable and rational.

2016See Dorsey v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2012 UT App 364, ¶ 8 , 294 P.3d 580 , affd, 2014 UT 22 , 330 P.3d 91 ; see also Westside Dixon Assocs, LLC v. Utah Power & Light Co./Pacificorp, 2002 UT 31, ¶ 7 , 44 P.3d 775 .

2016See Dorsey v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2012 UT App 364, ¶ 8 , 294 P.3d 580 , affd, 2014 UT 22 , 330 P.3d 91 ; see also Westside Dixon Assocs, LLC v. Utah Power & Light Co./Pacificorp, 2002 UT 31, ¶ 7 , 44 P.3d 775 .

2008"This court has previously concluded that the statute's 'grant of discretion to the Commission to apply the law requires that we apply an intermediate standard of review to its determinations.'" Johnson Bros., 967 P.2d at 1259 (quoting Osman Home Improvement v. Industrial Comm'n, 958 P.24 240, 243 (Utah Ct.App.1998)). 1 "The amount of the attorney fees awarded, if any, is a factual matter within the discretion of the Commission." Crenshaw v. Industrial Comm'n, 712 P.2d 247, 250 (Utah 1985).