Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Jones v. West

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided August 9, 2005No. 2144042Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcCLANAHAN, J.

I concur with the majority with regard to its decision in Parts IIA and III. I dissent with regard to Part II B, because I believe substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision and West did not prove that the procedural violations were not mere harmless error. Thus, I need not address Part II C.

The Administrative Process Act, Code 2.2-4000 et seq., provides that “the duty of the court with respect to issues of fact shall be limited to ascertaining whether there was substantial evidence in the agency record upon which the agency as the trier of the facts could reasonably find them to be…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  3. Brecht v. AbrahamsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API