Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704

Standards Of Review

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

Part 7. Judicial Review of Contested Cases

Standards Of Review

2-4-704. Standards of review. (1) The review must be conducted by the court without a jury and must be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency not shown in the record, proof of the irregularities may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs.

(2) The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because:

(a) the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(i) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(ii) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(iii) made upon unlawful procedure;

(iv) affected by other error of law;

(v) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record;

(vi) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or

(b) findings of fact, upon issues essential to the decision, were not made although requested.

(3) If a petition for review is filed challenging a licensing or permitting decision made pursuant to Title 75 or Title 82 on the grounds of unconstitutionality, as provided in subsection (2)(a)(i), the petitioner shall first establish the unconstitutionality of the underlying statute.

History: En. Sec. 16, Ch. 2, Ex. L. 1971; amd. Sec. 17, Ch. 285, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 82-4216(6), (7); amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 83, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 361, L. 2003.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 296 cases (29 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: McDonald v. Department of Environmental Quality
McDonald v. Department of Environmental Quality (2009) mont · cites it 22× “See § 2-4-704, MCA. ¶ 76 Turning then to health or safety risks, DEQ asserts that mats and runners pose a "significant maintenance challenge" because "they must be moved daily to sweep the floors.”
City of Billings v. Billings Firefighters Local No. 521 (1982) mont · cites it 24× “Section 2-4-704, MCA, sets forth the MAPA standards of review to be followed by a district court when reviewing an agency decision.”
State Ex Rel. Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. Board of Natural Resources & Conservation (1982) mont · cites it 32× “Section 2-4-704, MCA, provides in part: "(2) The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”
Yanzick v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 23, ETC. (1982) mont · cites it 18× “The standard of review applicable to the District Court is set forth in section 2-4-704, MCA, in pertinent part as follows: "(1) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record.”
Hohenlohe v. State, Department of Natural Resources & Conservation (2010) mont · cites it 26× “¶ 20 Hohenlohes petitioned for judicial review pursuant to § 2-4-704, MCA. The District Court granted Hohenlohes' petition on June 10, 2009.”
Wage Claims of Stewart v. Region II Child & Family Services (1990) mont · cites it 22× “Furthermore, § 2-4-704, MCA, provides for remand for additional factual findings only if they are essential to the decision and if they were not made although requested.”
Montana Power Co. v. Montana Public Service Commission (2001) mont · cites it 8× “The District Court was then required to follow the standard of review as set forth in the Montana Administrative Procedure Act, under § 2-4-704, MCA. ¶20 In turn, judicial review of an agency decision under the contested case statutes permits a court to reverse or modify the…”
North Fork Preservation Ass'n v. Department of State Lands (1989) mont · cites it 12× “(e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.”
Owens v. Montana Department of Revenue (2007) mont · cites it 12× “Section 2-4-704(2), MCA. We employ a three-part test to determine whether an agency's findings of fact are clearly erroneous: (1) we review the record to see if substantial evidence supports the findings, (2) if substantial evidence supports the findings, we determine if the…”
Norval Electric Coop v. Lawson (2022) mont · cites it 14× “Under MAPA, a court may not “substitute its judgment for that of the agency” on questions of fact; it may, however, reverse of modify administrative findings if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings are: i) in violation of…”
Frazer School District No. 2 v. Flynn (1987) mont · cites it 26× “Appellant appeals from the decision of the District Court. We are asked to determine whether the decision of the District Court complies with the Montana Administrative Procedures Act, specifically § 2-4-704, MCA, and § 2-4-623, MCA, and whether the decision of the Valley County…”
Steer, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1990) mont · cites it 4× “The District Court further stated that STAB ignored testimony that stated that Steer's funds were used in projects "that were charitable rather than strictly evangelistic" such as a hospital construction and educational contributions.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(1) — 34 cases
McDonald v. Department of Environmental Quality (2009) mont “See § 2-4-704, MCA. ¶ 76 Turning then to health or safety risks, DEQ asserts that mats and runners pose a "significant maintenance challenge" because "they must be moved daily to sweep the floors.”
Molnar v. Fox (2013) mont
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2) — 142 cases
Wage Claims of Stewart v. Region II Child & Family Services (1990) mont “Furthermore, § 2-4-704, MCA, provides for remand for additional factual findings only if they are essential to the decision and if they were not made although requested.”
Benjamin v. Anderson (2005) mont
McDonald v. Department of Environmental Quality (2009) mont “See § 2-4-704, MCA. ¶ 76 Turning then to health or safety risks, DEQ asserts that mats and runners pose a "significant maintenance challenge" because "they must be moved daily to sweep the floors.”
State Ex Rel. Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. Board of Natural Resources & Conservation (1982) mont “Section 2-4-704, MCA, provides in part: "(2) The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(a) — 28 cases
Denke v. Shoemaker (2008) mont
McDonald v. Department of Environmental Quality (2009) mont “See § 2-4-704, MCA. ¶ 76 Turning then to health or safety risks, DEQ asserts that mats and runners pose a "significant maintenance challenge" because "they must be moved daily to sweep the floors.”
Norval Electric Coop v. Lawson (2022) mont “Under MAPA, a court may not “substitute its judgment for that of the agency” on questions of fact; it may, however, reverse of modify administrative findings if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings are: i) in violation of…”
State Ex Rel. Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. Board of Natural Resources & Conservation (1982) mont “Section 2-4-704, MCA, provides in part: "(2) The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(a)(i) — 14 cases
Montana Power Co. v. Montana Public Service Commission (2001) mont “The District Court was then required to follow the standard of review as set forth in the Montana Administrative Procedure Act, under § 2-4-704, MCA. ¶20 In turn, judicial review of an agency decision under the contested case statutes permits a court to reverse or modify the…”
Shoemaker v. Denke (2004) mont
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(a)(ii) — 3 cases
Vote Solar v. PSC (2020) mont
Vote Solar v. PSC (2020) mont
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(a)(iii) — 1 case
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(a)(iv) — 11 cases
Bates v. Neva (2013) mont
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(a)(v) — 25 cases
Owens v. Montana Department of Revenue (2007) mont “Section 2-4-704(2), MCA. We employ a three-part test to determine whether an agency's findings of fact are clearly erroneous: (1) we review the record to see if substantial evidence supports the findings, (2) if substantial evidence supports the findings, we determine if the…”
Norval Electric Coop v. Lawson (2022) mont “Under MAPA, a court may not “substitute its judgment for that of the agency” on questions of fact; it may, however, reverse of modify administrative findings if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings are: i) in violation of…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(a)(vi) — 19 cases
Hohenlohe v. State, Department of Natural Resources & Conservation (2010) mont “¶ 20 Hohenlohes petitioned for judicial review pursuant to § 2-4-704, MCA. The District Court granted Hohenlohes' petition on June 10, 2009.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(b) — 6 cases
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(c) — 3 cases
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(d) — 2 cases
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(e) — 20 cases
City of Billings v. Billings Firefighters Local No. 521 (1982) mont “Section 2-4-704, MCA, sets forth the MAPA standards of review to be followed by a district court when reviewing an agency decision.”
North Fork Preservation Ass'n v. Department of State Lands (1989) mont “(e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.”
Frazer School District No. 2 v. Flynn (1987) mont “Appellant appeals from the decision of the District Court. We are asked to determine whether the decision of the District Court complies with the Montana Administrative Procedures Act, specifically § 2-4-704, MCA, and § 2-4-623, MCA, and whether the decision of the Valley County…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(f) — 1 case
Frazer School District No. 2 v. Flynn (1987) mont “Appellant appeals from the decision of the District Court. We are asked to determine whether the decision of the District Court complies with the Montana Administrative Procedures Act, specifically § 2-4-704, MCA, and § 2-4-623, MCA, and whether the decision of the Valley County…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(g) — 2 cases
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(ii) — 2 cases
Northwestern v. PSC (2016) mont
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(iii) — 2 cases
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(v) — 4 cases
Vote Solar v. PSC (2020) mont
Vote Solar v. PSC (2020) mont
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2)(vi) — 2 cases
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(2Xd) — 1 case
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(e) — 1 case
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-704(l) — 1 case
Hohenlohe v. State, Department of Natural Resources & Conservation (2010) mont “¶ 20 Hohenlohes petitioned for judicial review pursuant to § 2-4-704, MCA. The District Court granted Hohenlohes' petition on June 10, 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.