Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the agency’s “11-month period of data gathering, consultation, and review before promulgating the [rate reduction] was not so deficient as to be arbitrary and capricious”
• holding that the agency’s “11-month period of data gathering, consultation, and review before promulgating the [rate reduction] was not so deficient as to be arbitrary and capricious”
• holding that “section 30(A) requires the state to achieve a certain result but does not impose any particular method or process for getting 11 The Director also attempts to graft past judicial interpretation of the Boren Amendment onto this court’s interpretation of § 30(A
• requiring the agency’s “process of decision-making” to be “reasonable and sound”
• requiring the agency’s “process of decision-making” to be “reasonable and sound”
• “[Bjudgetary considerations may not be the sole basis for a rate revision .... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).