Association of Data Processing Service Organizations Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
By: LN on May 02, 2012 09:57:12 AM

Citation:  745 F.2d 677 (1984)

Summary:  Petitioners objected to the application filed by the Citicorp which wanted to engage in the processing and transmission of banking, financial and economic related data by way of timesharing, electronic funds transfer and other techniques. The board adopted ALJ's recommendation and ordered accordingly. Petitioners claimed that the board's order was not correct.

Facts:  Citicorp applied to engage in the processing and transmission of banking, financial and economic related data by way of timesharing, electronic funds transfer and other techniques. The board published the notice which was protested by petitioners the Association of Data Processing Service Organizations Inc., (ADAPSO) and two of its members. A hearing was scheduled. Before the hearing was held Citicorp amended its application for adding certain activities and requested to amend Regulation Y for permitting the activities. The administrative law judge held that the activities of Citicorp were closely related to the banking and it would benefit the public and recommended amendment to regulation Y. The board adopted ALJ's findings and approved the application. Petitioners filed an appeal to the Appellate Court.

Issue:  Whether the board was correct in adopting ALJ's holding and allowing Citicopr's application?

Holding:  Yes, the board was correct in adopting ALJ's holding and allowing Citicorp's application.

Procedure:  Judgment of the board was affirmed by the Appellate Court.

Rule:  The findings of the board as to the facts, if it was supported by evidence should be conclusive. (12 U.S.C. § 1843 (c) (8), Administrative Procedure Act)

Rationale:  Congress's unpropitious use of substantial evidence is plausible since the standard is more stringent. There is very little appeal left for an ineffable review that lies some where in between the quantum of factual support that is required to go to a jury i.e. the traditional substantial evidence test and the preponderance of evidence that would be applied in de novo review.

 

View Comments


Leave Comment
After logging in, you can add comments
Michael Mordechai YadegariReviewsout of 83 reviews