Carlos Lopez v. Federal Aviation Administration

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that court had jurisdiction to ensure agency scrupulously followed its own procedural rules that were put in place to protect parties before the agency
• stating that “‘a court’s duty to enforce an agency regulation, while most evident when compliance with the regulation is mandated by the Constitution or federal law,’ embraces as well agency regulations that are not so required.” (alterations omitted
• noting that Accardi “require[s] agencies to abide by internal, procedural regulations”
• distinguishing between “procedural rules benefitting the agency” and “procedural rules benefitting the party otherwise left unprotected by agency rules”
• explaining the importance of distinguishing between “procedural rules benefitting the agency” and “procedural rules benefitting the party otherwise left unprotected by agency rules”
• denying a claimed property interest in a plaintiff’s status as “Designated Engineering Representative” where the status was rescindable wholly “at the FAA’s discretion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).