Slawek v. BD. OF MED. ED. & LICENSURE

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 proper review is “not whether its order 9 was reasonable, but whether it was made in ‘accordance with law’ (i.e., whether it was made in bad faith, and whether it was fraudulent or capricious” (emphasis in original).
• holding proper review of an agency’s action is whether it was made in accordance with law
• “As the Blumenschein court put it, a reviewing court may interfere in an agency decision only when ‘there has been a manifest and flagrant abuse of discretion or a purely arbitrary execution of the agency’s duties or functions.’”
• “As the Blumenschein court put it, a reviewing court may interfere in an agency decision only when ‘there has been a manifest and flagrant abuse of discretion or a purely arbitrary execution of the agency’s duties or functions.’”
• “As the Blumenschein court put it, a reviewing court may interfere in an agency decision only when ‘there has been a manifest and flagrant abuse of discretion or a purely arbitrary execution of the agency’s duties or functions.’”
• “As the Blumenschein court put it, a reviewing court may interfere in an agency decision only when ‘there has been a manifest and flagrant abuse of discretion or a purely arbitrary execution of the agency’s duties or functions.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).