Schoch v. Leupold & Stevens

How courts have described this case

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

• Workers' Compensation Board's findings insufficient where board considered certain discretionary factors but made no factual findings explaining why it awarded smaller amount than requested
• substantial reason requirement necessitates “a sufficient explanation to allow a reviewing court to examine the agency’s action”
• substantial reason requirement necessitates \a sufficient explanation to allow a reviewing court to examine the agency's action\
• substantial reason requirement necessitates \a sufficient explanation to allow a reviewing court to examine the agency's action.\
• substantial reason requirement necessitates “a sufficient explanation to allow a reviewing court to examine the agency’s action”
• “The court * * * is responsi- ble for reviewing the agency’s decision to see that it is within the range of discretion granted to the agency.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).