Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act
§964. Judicial review of adjudication
(1) Except as provided in R.S. 15:1171 through 1177, a person who is
aggrieved by a final decision or order in an adjudication proceeding is entitled
to judicial review under this Chapter whether or not he has applied to the
agency for rehearing, without limiting, however, utilization of or the scope
of judicial review available under other means of review, redress, relief,
or trial
de novo provided by law. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency
action or ruling is immediately reviewable if review of the final agency
decision would not provide an adequate remedy and would inflict irreparable
injury.
(2) No agency or official thereof, or other person acting on behalf of an
agency or official thereof shall be entitled to judicial review under this
Chapter.
B. Proceedings for review may be instituted by filing a petition in the
district court of the parish in which the agency is located within thirty days
after mailing of notice of the final decision by the agency or, if a rehearing
is requested, within thirty days after the decision thereon. Copies of the
petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record.
C. The filing of the petition does not itself stay enforcement of the
agency decision. The agency may grant, or the reviewing court may order, a stay
ex parte upon appropriate terms, except as otherwise provided by Title 37 of the
Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, relative to professions and occupations. The
court may require that the stay be granted in accordance with the local rules of
the reviewing court pertaining to injunctive relief and the issuance of
temporary restraining orders.
D. Within thirty days after the service of the petition, or within further
time allowed by the court, the agency shall transmit to the reviewing court the
original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceeding under
review. By stipulation of all parties to the review proceedings, the record may
be shortened. A party unreasonably refusing to stipulate to limit the record may
be taxed by the court for the additional costs. The court may require or permit
subsequent corrections or additions to the record.
E. If, before the date set for hearing, application is made to the court
for leave to present additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of
the court that the additional evidence is material and that there were good
reasons for failure to present it in the proceeding before the agency, the court
may order that the additional evidence be taken before the agency upon
conditions determined by the court. The agency may modify its findings and
decision by reason of the additional evidence and shall file that evidence and
any modifications, new findings, or decisions with the reviewing
court.
F. The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be
confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before
the agency, not shown in the record, proof thereon may be taken in the court.
The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written
briefs.
G. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for
further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial
rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative
findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(4) Affected by other error of law;
(5) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or
clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or
(6) Not supported and sustainable by a preponderance of evidence as
determined by the reviewing court. In the application of this rule, the court
shall make its own determination and conclusions of fact by a preponderance of
evidence based upon its own evaluation of the record reviewed in its entirety
upon judicial review. In the application of the rule, where the agency has the
opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses by first-hand observation of
demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not, due regard shall
be given to the agency's determination of credibility issues.
(7) Repealed by Acts 2002, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 89,§ 3, eff. April 18,
2002.
Acts 1966, No. 382,§ 14, eff. July 1, 1967; Acts 1995, No. 1105,§
1, eff. June 29, 1995; Acts 1997, No. 128,§ 1, eff. June 12, 1997; Acts
1997, No. 1216,§ 2; Acts 1997, No. 1224,§ 1; H.C.R. No. 89, 1997 R.S.,
eff. June 2, 1997; Acts 1999, No. 1332,§ 1, eff. July 12, 1999; Acts 2002,
1st Ex. Sess., No. 89,§ 3, eff. April 18, 2002.
NOTE: SEE ACTS 1995, NO. 1105,§ 2.
NOTE: SEE ACTS 1997, NO. 128,§ 2 RELATIVE TO APPLICABILITY OF
ACT.
NOTE: See Acts 1999, No. 1332,§ 2 relative to the remedial nature of
Act.
The Climate Change and Public Health Law Site
The Best on the WWW Since 1995!
Copyright as to non-public domain materials
See DR-KATE.COM for home hurricane and disaster preparation
See WWW.EPR-ART.COM for photography of southern Louisiana and Hurricane Katrina
Professor Edward P. Richards, III, JD, MPH - Webmaster
Provide Website Feedback - https://www.lsu.edu/feedback
Privacy Statement - https://www.lsu.edu/privacy
Accessibility Statement - https://www.lsu.edu/accessibility
