Brown v. Crim. Just. Stand. Train

3 Citing cases

  1. Bemenderfer v. Dept. of Business

    955 So. 2d 659 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

    In addition, [FREC] made supplemental findings of fact without sufficiently articulating in the Final Order the basis for the actions of [FREC]. 8. It is black letter law that an agency may not reweigh evidence . . ., judge the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret evidence anew. Brown v. Criminal Justice Standards and Training Comm., 667 So.2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). 9. An administrative agency is not permitted to weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, or interpret the evidence to fit its ultimate conclusions.

  2. Carlson v. Job Service North Dakota

    548 N.W.2d 389 (N.D. 1996)   Cited 12 times
    In Carlson v. Job Service North Dakota, 548 N.W.2d 389, 393 (ND 1996), we described what constitutes quitting with good cause attributable to the employer under N.D.C.C. § 52-06-02(1).

    See Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla.App. 1985) ("The agency may not reject the hearing officer's finding unless there is no competent, substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred. The agency is not authorized to weigh the evidence presented, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to fit its desired ultimate conclusion."); Brown v. Criminal Justice Standards Training Comm'n, 667 So.2d 977 (Fla.App. 1996) (commission improperly reweighed evidence). At least, as explained in 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 374 (1994): "An agency must fully and particularly set out the facts and reasons for its departure from an initial decision" by a hearing officer.

  3. Esselman v. Job Service North Dakota

    548 N.W.2d 400 (N.D. 1996)   Cited 11 times
    In Esselman the district court upheld Job Service's denial of benefits to Esselman whereas the district court, a different judge sitting, reversed Job Service's denial of benefits to Carlson.

    See Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla.App. 1985) ("The agency may not reject the hearing officer's finding unless there is no competent, substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred. The agency is not authorized to weigh the evidence presented, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to fit its desired ultimate conclusion."); Brown v. Criminal Justice Standards Training Comm'n, 667 So.2d 977 (Fla.App. 1996) (commission improperly reweighed evidence). At least, as explained in 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 374 (1994): "An agency must fully and particularly set out the facts and reasons for its departure from an initial decision" by a hearing officer.