Enterprise National Bank v. Johanns

3 Citing cases

  1. Schroeder v. U.S.

    683 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Or. 2010)

    See 7 U.S.C. § 6999 (2008) ("A final determination of the Division shall be reviewable and enforceable by any United States district court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with [the APA]."). See also Enterprise National Bank v. Johanns, 539 F. Supp. 2d 343, 345 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ("Neither the Bank nor the Agency appealed this Hearing Officer's determination; thus, the Remand Appeal Determination remains intact as the ultimate administrative decision regarding this case."). As such, the court reviews the matter under the arbitrary and capricious standard.

  2. Enterprise Nat. Bank v. Vilsack

    568 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2009)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that the district court below correctly concluded that the USDA's implementation "was neither arbitrary nor capricious"

    On cross-motions for declaratory judgment, the district court granted Agriculture's motion. Enter. Nat'l Bank v. Johanns, 539 F.Supp.2d 343, 347 (D.D.C. 2008). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court's judgment.

  3. Huff v. Vilsack

    195 F. Supp. 3d 343 (D.D.C. 2016)   Cited 5 times
    Noting that, even under the deferential standard of review, "courts retain a role, and an important one, in ensuring that agencies have engaged in reasoned decision-making, which means the court must ensure that the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and determine whether there has been a clear error of judgment" (cleaned up)

    Id. § 6999. Pursuant to that mandate, district courts have authority to review an agency's purported implementation in order to ensure that the agency has acted in accordance with the APA in effectuating the determination of the NAD. See, e.g. , Enter. Nat'l Bank v. Johanns , 539 F.Supp.2d 343, 346–47 (D.D.C.2008).C. Facts And Procedural History