Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Center for Auto Safety, Inc. v. Federal Highway Administration

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
956 F.2d 309 (1992)


Facts

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (defendant) was required by statute, 23 U.S.C. § 151, to set maximum intervals for state-highway-bridge inspections. The FHWA set the maximum interval at two years. In 1984, the FHWA affirmed the importance of the two-year interval. In 1988, a new FHWA rule provided criteria by which states could inspect some bridges less frequently than two years, or not at all. The FHWA said it changed its 1984 position based on unspecified later studies. Also, for the first time, the 1988 rule required inspection of underwater bridge supports. Lacking better data about the appropriate frequency of underwater inspections, the FHWA relied on professional engineer recommendations to set the underwater-bridge inspections at five-year intervals. The FHWA denied a petition from the Center for Auto Safety, Inc. (Center) (plaintiff) to review the amended 1988 regulations. The Center sued the FHWA, arguing that the FHWA's amended regulations were adopted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. Specifically, the Center argued the amendment providing exemptions from the two-year interval violated 23 U.S.C. § 151 because the exemption provided no maximum inspection interval at all. The Center also argued the underwater-bridge inspection intervals should be two years, like the other bridges. The district court upheld the FHWA's amended rules. The Center appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.