North Carolina § 150B-51 - Scope and standard of review.

§ 150B-51. Scope and standard of review.

, (a1) Repealed by Sessions Laws, 2011-398, s. 27. For effective date and applicability, see editor's note. The court reviewing a final decision may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings. It may also reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: In violation of constitutional provisions; In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency or administrative law judge; Made upon unlawful procedure; Affected by other error of law; Unsupported by substantial evidence admissible under G.S. 150B-29(a), 150B-30, or 150B-31 in view of the entire record as submitted; or Arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. In reviewing a final decision in a contested case, the court shall determine whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought in the petition based upon its review of the final decision and the official record. With regard to asserted errors pursuant to subdivisions (1) through (4) of subsection (b) of this section, the court shall conduct its review of the final decision using the de novo standard of review. With regard to asserted errors pursuant to subdivisions (5) and (6) of subsection (b) of this section, the court shall conduct its review of the final decision using the whole record standard of review. In reviewing a final decision allowing judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, the court may enter any order allowed by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(c) or Rule 56. If the order of the court does not fully adjudicate the case, the court shall remand the case to the administrative law judge for such further proceedings as are just. History (1973, c. 1331, s. 1; 1983, c. 919, s. 4; 1985, c. 746, s. 1; 1987, c. 878, s. 19; 2000-140, s. 94.1; 2000-190, s. 11; 2011-398, s. 27.) Local Modification. - City of Durham: 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994) c. 658, s. 1.2. Editor's Note. - Session Laws 2011-398, s. 62, is a severability clause. Session Laws 2011-398, s. 63, as amended by Session Laws 2012-187, s. 8.1, provides in relevant part: "Sections 15 through 55 of this act become effective January 1, 2012, and apply to contested cases commenced on or after that date. With regard to contested cases affected by Section 55.2 of this act, the provisions of Sections 15 through 27 of this act become effective when the United States Environmental Protection Agency approvals referenced in Section 55.2 have been issued or October 1, 2012, whichever occurs first. With regard to contested cases affected by Section 55.1 of this act, the provisions of Sections 15 through 27 and Sections 32 and 33 of this act become effective when the waiver referenced in Section 55.1 has been granted or February 1, 2013, whichever occurs first. Unless otherwise provided elsewhere in this act, the remainder of this act is effective when it becomes law." For Section 55.2, see editor's note under G.S. 150B-34. Effect of Amendments. - Session Laws 2011-398, s. 27, rewrote the section. For effective date and applicability, see editor's note. Legal Periodicals. - For comment, "The Problem of Procedural Delay in Contested Case Hearings . . ." under the North Carolina APA, see 7 N.C. Cent. L.J. 347 (1976). For survey of 1979 tax law, see 58 N.C.L. Rev. 1548 (1980). For article, "A Powerless Judiciary? The North Carolina Courts' Perceptions of Review of Administrative Action," see 12 N.C. Cent. L.J. 21 (1980). For survey of 1981 administrative law, see 60 N.C.L. Rev. 1165 (1982). For article, "What Were We Thinking?: Legislative Intent and the 2000 Amendments to the North Carolina APA," see 79 N.C.L. Rev. 1657 (2001). For article, "Negotiating the Federal Government's Compliance with Court Orders: An Initial Exploration," see 97 N.C.L. Rev. 899 (2019).