Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/103311/camp-vs-pitts
Timestamp: 2017-11-21 21:27:43
Document Index: 503003665

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 26', '§ 557', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 701', '§ 26', '§ 557', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706']

Camp Vs Pitts - Citation 103311 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Camp Vs. Pitts - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/103311
Case Number 411 U.S. 138
Respondent Pitts
.....bank act nor the apa requires the comptroller to hold a hearing or to make formal findings on the hearing record when passing on applications for new banking page 411 u. s. 141 authorities. see 12 u.s.c. § 26; 5 u.s.c. § 557. [ footnote 3 ] accordingly, the proper standard for judicial review of the comptroller's adjudications is not the "substantial evidence" test, which is appropriate when reviewing findings made on a hearing record, 5 u.s.c. § 706(2)(e). nor was the reviewing court free to hold a de novo hearing under § 706(2)(f), and thereafter determine whether the agency action was "unwarranted by the facts." it is quite plain from our decision in citizens to preserve page 411 u. s. 142 overton park v. volpe, 401 u. s. 402 .....
Camp v. Pitts - 411 U.S. 138 (1973)
U.S. Supreme Court Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973)
The appropriate standard for judicial review of a decision by the Comptroller of the Currency denying a national bank charter is whether his adjudication was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law." The District Court is to review the administrative record already in existence, supplemented if necessary by affidavits or testimony amplifying the reason for the Comptroller's decision, and is not authorized by the National Bank Act or the Administrative Procedure Act to conduct a de novo hearing in which the "substantial evidence" test is to be applied. Cf. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402 .
are not favorable." No formal hearings were required by the controlling statute or guaranteed by the applicable regulations, although the latter provided for hearings when requested and when granted at the discretion of the Comptroller. [ Footnote 1 ] Respondents did not request a formal hearing, but asked for reconsideration. That request was granted, and a supplemental field examination was conducted, whereupon the Comptroller again denied the application, this time stating in a letter that "we were unable to reach a favorable conclusion as to the need factor," and explaining that conclusion to some extent. [ Footnote 2 ] Respondents then brought an action in federal district court seeking review of the Comptroller's decision. The entire administrative record was placed before the court, and, upon an examination of that record and of the two letters of explanation, the court granted summary judgment against respondents, holding that de novo review was not warranted in the circumstances and finding that, "although the Comptroller may have erred, there is substantial basis for his determination, and . . . it was neither capricious nor arbitrary." 329 F.Supp. 1302, 1308. On appeal, the Court of Appeals did not reach the merits. Rather, it held that the Comptroller's ruling
Unquestionably, the Comptroller's action is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 701. See Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150 , 397 U. S. 156 -158 (1970). But it is also clear that neither the National Bank Act nor the APA requires the Comptroller to hold a hearing or to make formal findings on the hearing record when passing on applications for new banking
authorities. See 12 U.S.C. § 26; 5 U.S.C. § 557. [ Footnote 3 ] Accordingly, the proper standard for judicial review of the Comptroller's adjudications is not the "substantial evidence" test, which is appropriate when reviewing findings made on a hearing record, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(E). Nor was the reviewing court free to hold a de novo hearing under § 706(2)(F), and thereafter determine whether the agency action was "unwarranted by the facts." It is quite plain from our decision in Citizens to Preserve
Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402 (1971), that de novo review is appropriate only where there are inadequate factfinding procedures in an adjudicatory proceeding, or where judicial proceedings are brought to enforce certain administrative actions. Id. at 401 U. S. 415 . Neither situation applies here. The proceeding in the District Court was obviously not brought to enforce the Comptroller's decision, and the only deficiency suggested in agency action or proceedings is that the Comptroller inadequately explained his decision. As Overton Park demonstrates, however, that failure, if it occurred in this case, is not a deficiency in factfinding procedures such as to warrant the de novo hearing ordered in this case.
The appropriate standard for review was, accordingly, whether the Comptroller's adjudication was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," as specified in 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). In applying that standard, the focal point for judicial review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court. Respondents contend that the Court of Appeals did not envision a true de novo review, and that, at most, all that was called for was the type of "plenary review" contemplated by Overton Park, supra, at 401 U. S. 420 . We cannot agree. The present remand instructions require the Comptroller and other parties to make an evidentiary record before the District Court "manifesting opposition, if any, to the new bank." The respondents were also to be afforded opportunities to support their application with "any other relevant evidence." These instructions seem to put aside the extensive administrative record already made and presented to the reviewing court.
" Comptroller to determine if association can commence business. "