![[Home]](/wiki.gif)
Evidentiary Presumption That Agencies Regularly Discharge Their Legal DutiesEvidentiary Presumption That Agencies Regularly Discharge Their Legal Duties
| |
| The Bush Survival Guide - 250 Ways to Make It Through The NExt Four Years Without Misunderestimating the Dangers Ahead, and Other Subliminable Stategeries |
|
Links:
| |
Evidentiary Presumption that Agencies Regularly Discharge Their Legal Duties. It is a settled doctrine in state and federal courts that the burden of proof lies with any party challenging an agency decision to show that it was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law or beyond the jurisdiction of the agency. In general, courts indulge all reasonable inferences that would support an agency’s decision, and rely upon the rebuttable presumption that agency personnel have regularly discharged their legal duties. To overcome these weighty burdens of proof and evidentiary presumptions, a party challenging agency conduct must in general demonstrate that the agency’s decision is not supported by any substantial evidence, or that the agency clearly violated procedural or substantive legal requirements. To amass the overwhelming evidence or to prepare the compelling legal argument necessary to meet these difficult burdens of persuasion, substantial time must be invested in the development of the factual and legal arguments that the aggrieved party intends to present to the agency before its ruling.
Typically, a successful challenge by an aggrieved party involves a searching and comprehensive review of the documents supporting the agency’s proposed decision, as well as an investigation and discovery of documents and facts which do not support the agency’s proposal. Conducting this review requires a focused and concerted effort by professionals trained in the appropriate scientific and legal disciplines. Merely raising questions, without attempting to demonstrate that the agency’s proffered answers are mistaken or incomplete, does not suffice. The sustained and penetrating investigation required to unearth, develop and present factual and legal arguments that successfully challenge the agency’s intended action requires supervision by counsel experienced in litigating the merits of agency decisions. Most unsuccessful challenges to agency conduct fail because the aggrieved party neglected, or was unable, to dedicate the time and resources necessary to prepare cogent, well-documented positions that demonstrate clear legal or factual error in the agency’s decision-making.
|
Interested in Microsoft SQL Server Topics?