Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-14 (2026)
Burden of proof; standards of review
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 14. (a) The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party to the judicial review proceeding asserting invalidity.
(b) The validity of agency action shall be determined in accordance with the standards of review provided in this section, as applied to the agency action at the time it was taken.
(c) The court shall make findings of fact on each material issue on which the court's decision is based.
(d) The court shall grant relief under section 15 of this chapter only if it determines that a person seeking judicial relief has been prejudiced by an agency action that is:
(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(4) without observance of procedure required by law; or
(5) unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence.
As added by P.L.18-1986, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.35-1987, SEC.22; P.L.128-2024, SEC.14.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 205
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Andy Mohr West d/b/a Andy Mohr Toyota, Butler Motors, Inc. d/b/a Butler Toyota, & TW Toy, Inc. d/b/a Tom Wood Toyota v. Off. of the Ind. Sec'y of State, Auto Dealer Servs. Div., 54 N.E.3d 349 (Ind. 2016).
Andy Mohr West d/b/a Andy Mohr Toyota, Butler Motors, Inc. d/b/a Butler Toyota, & TW Toy, Inc. d/b/a Tom Wood Toyota v. Off. of the Ind. Sec'y of State, Auto Dealer Servs. Div., 54 N.E.3d 349 (Ind. 2016). “Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14(a). Our review of agency action is intentionally limited, as we recognize an agency has expertise in its field and the *353 public relies on its authority to govern in that area.”
Hoosier Outdoor Advert. Corp. v. RBL Mgmt., Inc., 844 N.E.2d 157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Indiana Code Section 4-21.5-5-14 establishes the scope of judicial review of an administrative decision.”
Indiana State Ethics Comm'n, Off. of Inspector Gen., & David Thomas, in his Off. Capacity as Inspector Gen. v. Patricia Sanchez, 18 N.E.3d 988 (Ind. 2014). “” Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14(a) (2012). 1 The trial court may reverse the agency’s action only if it determines that a person seeking judicial relief has been prejudiced by *992 an agency action that is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in…”
LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. 2000). “See Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d). While an appellate court grants deference to the administrative agency’s findings of fact, no such deference is accorded to the agency’s conclusions of law.”
Manns v. Skolnik, 666 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “See I.C. § 4-21.5-5-14(a), (d). Therefore, Manns did not present the issue at the trial level and did not establish that the parties could have reasonably anticipated that the issue would have been raised.”
Equicor Dev., Inc. v. Westfield-Washington Twp. Plan Comm'n, 758 N.E.2d 34 (Ind. 2001). “Standard of Review Indiana Code section 4-21.5-5-14 pre-seribes the scope of court review of an administrative decision.”
Jay Classroom Teachers Ass'n v. Jay Sch. Corp. & Indiana Educ. Emp. Relations Bd., 55 N.E.3d 813 (Ind. 2016). “§ 4-21.5-5-14(a). Further, when reviewing a challenge to an administrative agency’s decision, “this Court will not try the facts de novo nor substitute its own judgment for that of the agency.”
Andrianova v. Indiana Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin., 799 N.E.2d 5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “I.C. § 4-21.5-5-14(a); Metro. Sch. Dist. of Southwest Allen County v.”
Microvote Gen. Corp. v. Indiana Election Comm'n, 924 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “See Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d). While an appellate court grants deference to the administrative agency's findings of fact, no such deference is accorded to the agency's conclusions of law.”
S & S Enter., Inc. v. Marion Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 788 N.E.2d 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14 (1998) establishes the seope of a court's review of an administrative decision.”
First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 990 N.E.2d 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d). The trial court stated that it “must find both that an agency action fits into one of the five aforementioned categories and that the agency action prejudiced the petitioner,” and found that First American failed to meet its burden of proof with regard…”
First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 19 N.E.3d 757 (Ind. 2014). “I.C. § 4-21.5-5-14. This section also requires that the reviewing court “shall make findings of fact on each material issue on which the court’s decision is based.”
— Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-14(a) — 68 cases
Jay Classroom Teachers Ass'n v. Jay Sch. Corp. & Indiana Educ. Emp. Relations Bd., 55 N.E.3d 813 (Ind. 2016). “§ 4-21.5-5-14(a). Further, when reviewing a challenge to an administrative agency’s decision, “this Court will not try the facts de novo nor substitute its own judgment for that of the agency.”
Indiana State Ethics Comm'n, Off. of Inspector Gen., & David Thomas, in his Off. Capacity as Inspector Gen. v. Patricia Sanchez, 18 N.E.3d 988 (Ind. 2014). “” Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14(a) (2012). 1 The trial court may reverse the agency’s action only if it determines that a person seeking judicial relief has been prejudiced by *992 an agency action that is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in…”
Andy Mohr West d/b/a Andy Mohr Toyota, Butler Motors, Inc. d/b/a Butler Toyota, & TW Toy, Inc. d/b/a Tom Wood Toyota v. Off. of the Ind. Sec'y of State, Auto Dealer Servs. Div., 54 N.E.3d 349 (Ind. 2016). “Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14(a). Our review of agency action is intentionally limited, as we recognize an agency has expertise in its field and the *353 public relies on its authority to govern in that area.”
Andrianova v. Indiana Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin., 799 N.E.2d 5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “I.C. § 4-21.5-5-14(a); Metro. Sch. Dist. of Southwest Allen County v.”
Manns v. Skolnik, 666 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “See I.C. § 4-21.5-5-14(a), (d). Therefore, Manns did not present the issue at the trial level and did not establish that the parties could have reasonably anticipated that the issue would have been raised.”
— Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-14(c) — 3 cases
Regester v. Indiana State Bd. of Nursing, 703 N.E.2d 147 (Ind. 1998).
Taylor v. Indiana Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin., 699 N.E.2d 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
Indiana Civil Rights Comm'n v. Weingart, Inc., 588 N.E.2d 1288 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992).
— Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d) — 106 cases
Microvote Gen. Corp. v. Indiana Election Comm'n, 924 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “See Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d). While an appellate court grants deference to the administrative agency's findings of fact, no such deference is accorded to the agency's conclusions of law.”
First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 990 N.E.2d 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d). The trial court stated that it “must find both that an agency action fits into one of the five aforementioned categories and that the agency action prejudiced the petitioner,” and found that First American failed to meet its burden of proof with regard…”
Andy Mohr West d/b/a Andy Mohr Toyota, Butler Motors, Inc. d/b/a Butler Toyota, & TW Toy, Inc. d/b/a Tom Wood Toyota v. Off. of the Ind. Sec'y of State, Auto Dealer Servs. Div., 54 N.E.3d 349 (Ind. 2016). “Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14(a). Our review of agency action is intentionally limited, as we recognize an agency has expertise in its field and the *353 public relies on its authority to govern in that area.”
Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Indiana Dep't of Ins., 868 N.E.2d 50 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. 2000). “See Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d). While an appellate court grants deference to the administrative agency’s findings of fact, no such deference is accorded to the agency’s conclusions of law.”
— Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d)(1) — 9 cases
LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. 2000). “See Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d). While an appellate court grants deference to the administrative agency’s findings of fact, no such deference is accorded to the agency’s conclusions of law.”
Indiana High Sch. Athletic Ass'n v. Carlberg Ex Rel. Carlberg, 694 N.E.2d 222 (Ind. 1997).
Indiana-Kentucky Elec. Corp. v. Comm'r, Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt., 820 N.E.2d 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt. v. Lake Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 847 N.E.2d 974 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Taylor v. Indiana Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin., 699 N.E.2d 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
— Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d)(2) — 2 cases
Alleghany Corp. v. Haase, 896 F.2d 1046 (7th Cir. 1990).
Ind. Auto. Wholesalers Assoc., Inc., Nat'l Dealer Licence, Llc. v. Carol Mihalik, Comm. of the Ind. Sec. Div. of the Ind. Sec. of State (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d)(3) — 2 cases
LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. 2000). “See Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d). While an appellate court grants deference to the administrative agency’s findings of fact, no such deference is accorded to the agency’s conclusions of law.”
Regester v. Indiana State Bd. of Nursing, 689 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
— Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d)(4) — 4 cases
Indiana State Bd. of Health Facility Administrators v. Werner, 841 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Pack v. Indiana Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin., 935 N.E.2d 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
Teaching Our Posterity Success, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of Educ. & Indiana State Bd. of Educ., 3 N.E.3d 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Teaching Our Posterity Success, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of Educ., 24 N.E.3d 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d)(5) — 8 cases
Pack v. Indiana Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin., 935 N.E.2d 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
Indiana Civil Rights Comm'n v. Weingart, Inc., 588 N.E.2d 1288 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992).
Hamilton Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Smith, 567 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).
City of Indianapolis v. Bradford Bentley, 56 N.E.3d 1163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Westville Corr. Facility v. Finney, 953 N.E.2d 1116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
— Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d)(8) — 1 case
Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Soc'y, Inc. v. Elizabeth Bridgewater o/b/o Alyssa Bridgewater, 23 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. 2015).
— Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d)(l) — 4 cases
Flynn v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehs., 716 N.E.2d 988 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
Cardinal Ritter High Sch., Inc. v. Aleesha Bullock, 17 N.E.3d 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
James M. Brinkley & Stephanie L. Brinkley v. Michael Haluska, P.E., d/b/a Retro Tech, 982 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
State Bd. of Funeral & Cemetery Serv. v. Settlers Life Ins. Co., 5 N.E.3d 1170 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-14(g) — 3 cases
Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin. v. Calvert, 672 N.E.2d 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).
Indiana State Bd. of Health Facility Administrators v. Werner, 841 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Developmental Servs. Alternatives, Inc. v. Indiana Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin., 915 N.E.2d 169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.