Opinion ID: 2533998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The district court's application of IAPA's arbitrary, capricious or abuse of discretion standard was proper.

Text: Although the district court determined that IAPA did not apply to this case, it found IAPA's judicial review provisions to enunciate a sound standard to review the SIF's Managers' and Directors' actions. I.C. § 67-5279 states that the court should affirm agency action unless the court finds that the action was: ... (d) arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Subsection (a) states that, the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The district court found that this standard was relevant considering the fact that the challenged decisions of the Manager and Directors were discretionary. The district court's application of this standard is appropriate. HLFPD's argument that the business judgment rule should be the standard applied to review the Managers' and Directors' decisions fails. The SIF is not a private corporation. Its Managers and Directors are entitled to the higher level of deference afforded by the abuse of discretion standard. Regardless, the district court found the business judgment rule to be relevant to the determination of whether the SIF Manager abused his discretion, determining that the SIF Manager satisfied the business judgment rule, if it were applicable. The business judgment rule is less deferential than the abuse of discretion standard. If the Manager satisfied that rule, he also did not abuse his discretion. The district court's finding on this point is supported by the record.