Crosby v. Heartt

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a court has subject-matter jurisdiction over an APA claim if the claim alleges a violation of an underlying statute or if the claim alleges agency action that is “arbitrary and capricious”
• rejecting the argument that there was no law to apply as “nonsense” because the “arbitrary and capricious standard of the APA is well established”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).