Talk:Administrative Procedure Act

2/2/05
walshga: I took out "recorded" from the line that read "the APA is recorded under Title 5 of the United States Code" and replaced it with "the text of the APA can be found under Title 5 . . . " Federal statutes, such as the APA, are "codified" in the USC. I want to avoid the legalistic term "codified," so I chose to use the simpler "text . . .can be found." See, e.g., Oates,The Legal Writing Handbook, at 381-2 (1993)(discussing statutes as being "found" in code compilations).

Image copyright problem with File:Stamp-ctc-newdeal.png
The image File:Stamp-ctc-newdeal.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Legislative history
This paper looks like it should have good information about the legislative history of the APA, but it doesn't seem to be available for download. 121a0012 (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Administrative Procedure Act (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222075940/http://www.harvardlawreview.org:80/issues/121/december07/Note_1047.php to http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/december07/Note_1047.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Much of "Standard of judicial review" section seems lifted off a book called Boomers are Coming
See: https://books.google.com/books?id=IwnmNJNejHcC&pg=PT282&lpg=PT282&dq=Even+if+a+court+finds+a+rule+unwise,+it+will+stand+as+long+as+it+is+not+%22arbitrary,+capricious,+an+abuse+of+discretion,+or+otherwise+not+in+accordance+with+the+law&source=bl&ots=miH-Rcw62f&sig=OluGOgOHMBugs1UGlgiTNOOc2Jo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8_8OUt9HXAhXh54MKHeERAegQ6AEIMTAC#v=onepage&q=Even%20if%20a%20court%20finds%20a%20rule%20unwise%2C%20it%20will%20stand%20as%20long%20as%20it%20is%20not%20%22arbitrary%2C%20capricious%2C%20an%20abuse%20of%20discretion%2C%20or%20otherwise%20not%20in%20accordance%20with%20the%20law&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.119.165 (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)