Fund v. Vilsack

7 Citing cases

  1. Dee v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 12649-16W (U.S.T.C. Aug. 14, 2024)

    Van Bemmelen v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. 64, 73 (2020) (quoting Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Vilsack, 110 F.Supp.3d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2015)).

  2. Estate of Insinga v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 9011-13W (U.S.T.C. Dec. 5, 2023)

    III. Exhibits to Petitioner's V, Inc. Motion and Petitioner's X, Inc. Motion Subsequent to the filing of the parties' Motions in this case, we observed in Van Bemmelen v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. 64 (2020) (Van Bemmelen), that our review is generally confined to the administrative record and explained that a party may supplement the administrative record in one of two ways: "either by (1) including evidence that should have been properly a part of the administrative record but was excluded by the agency"-so-called omitted evidence-"or (2) adding extrajudicial evidence that was not before the agency but the party believes should nonetheless be included in the administrative record." See 155 T.C. 64, 73 (2020) (quoting Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Vilsack, 110 F.Supp.3d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2015)).

  3. Animal Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. Perdue

    872 F.3d 602 (D.C. Cir. 2017)   Cited 30 times
    Directing district court to reconsider its decision denying leave to supplement the administrative record with "records the agency had in its possession at the time of its decision," including agency investigations and first-hand accounts from members of the public of a zoo's license violations

    On June 23, 2015, the District Court denied Appellants' motion. ALDF v. Vilsack , 110 F.Supp.3d 157, 161-62 (D.D.C. 2015).On March 24, 2016, the District Court granted USDA's motion to dismiss the complaint.

  4. Unitedhealthcare Ins. Co. v. Azar

    316 F. Supp. 3d 339 (D.D.C. 2018)   Cited 3 times

    Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe , 401 U.S. 402, 420, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), abrogated on other grounds byCalifano v. Sanders , 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). The full administrative record "include[s] all documents and materials that the agency directly or indirectly considered," Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Vilsack , 110 F.Supp.3d 157, 159 (D.D.C. 2015), and a court "should have before it neither more nor less information than did the agency when it made its decision." Walter O. Boswell Mem'l Hosp. v. Heckler , 749 F.2d 788, 792 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

  5. Hill v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 25539-10W (U.S.T.C. Aug. 18, 2022)

    Parties may seek supplementation (1) to provide "evidence that should have been properly a part of the administrative record but was excluded by the agency;" or (2) to add "extrajudicial evidence that was not initially before the agency but the party believes should nonetheless be included in the administrative record." Van Bemmelen v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. 64, 73 (2020) (quoting Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Vilsack, 110 F.Supp.3d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2015)). Here, petitioner seeks supplementation of the administrative record with materials from both categories of evidence.

  6. Neal v. Comm'r

    T.C. Memo. 2020-138 (U.S.T.C. Oct. 5, 2020)

    An administrative record may be "supplemented" in one of two ways, "either by (1) including evidence that should have been properly a part of the administrative record but was excluded by the agency, or (2) adding extrajudicial evidence that was not initially before the agency but the party believes should nonetheless be included in the administrative record." Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Vilsack, 110 F. Supp. 3d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1, 5 n.4 (D.D.C. 2009)). * * * Mr. Neal calls for the first such form of "supplementation", i.e., adding to the record the information that he contends should have been in the record but was excluded by the agency (that is, the information he says he himself gave to Agent Bermudez and his Form 211 that he says must have been given to the agent by the WBO or someone else).

  7. Van Bemmelen v. Comm'r

    155 T.C. No. 4 (U.S.T.C. Aug. 27, 2020)   Cited 88 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Van Bemmelen v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. 64, 76-77 (2020), we explained that in exceptional circumstances we may supplement the designated record with evidence that the WBO did not consider.

    An administrative record may be "supplemented" in one of two ways, "either by (1) including evidence that should have been properly a part of the administrative record but was excluded by the agency, or (2) adding extrajudicial evidence that was not initially before the agency but the party believes should nonetheless be included in the administrative record." Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Vilsack, 110 F. Supp. 3d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1, 5 n.4 (D.D.C. 2009)). Petitioner's motion conflates these two types of record "supplementation": It requests the Court to include certain omitted evidence in the administrative record as well as to review certain evidence that is outside or in addition to the administrative record.