Meier Infiniti Co. v. Motor Vehicle Board

How courts have described this case

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

• findings are not required on matters agency does not find persuasive or does not rely upon to support its ultimate decision
• applying abuse-of-discretion standard to issue of whether agency erred in not granting party’s motion to reopen evidentiary hearing, noting that agency decisions “on matters involving the agency’s administrative docket are within the discretionary control of the hearing officer”
• applying abuse-of-discretion standard to issue of whether agency erred in not granting party's motion to reopen evidentiary hearing, noting that agency decisions \on matters involving the agency's administrative docket are within the discretionary control of the hearing officer\
• applying abuse-of- discretion standard to issue of whether agency erred in not granting party’s motion to reopen evidentiary hearing, noting that agency decisions “on matters involving the agency’s administrative docket are within the discretionary control of the hearing officer”
• findings are 7 The franchise compliance factor was undisputed. To the extent Grubbs argues that a specific finding on franchise compliance was required, we address that issue below. 17 not required on matters agency does not find persuasive or does not rely upon to support its ultimate decision
• “The decisions of the Board in matters involving the agency’s administrative docket are within the discretionary control of the hearing officer.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).