Honeycutt v. Virginia Real Estate Commission

Arlington County Circuit Court

Honeycutt v. Virginia Real Estate Commission

3 Va. Cir. 45, 1982 Va. Cir. LEXIS 76

CourtArlington County Circuit Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 1982

DocketCase No. (Law) 22271

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Va. Cir. 45 (Honeycutt v. Virginia Real Estate Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arlington County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Honeycutt v. Virginia Real Estate Commission, 3 Va. Cir. 45, 1982 Va. Cir. LEXIS 76 (Va. Super. Ct. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE CHARLES H. DUFF

For decision is an appeal of an Order of the Virginia Real Estate Commission filed pursuant to the Administrative Process Act, Section 9-6.14:1 et seq.

The issues on review and the duty of the reviewing Court are set out in Section 9-6.14:17. It is apropos to note that the duty of the Court with respect to issues of fact is 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 as it did. Also, the Court is mandated by the statute to take due account of the presumption of official regularity, the experience and specialized competence of the agency and the purposes of the basic law under which the agency has acted.

Upon a careful review of the transcript of the hearing of July 8, 1980, the report of the hearing officer, and the authorities cited at argument, I am of the opinion that the decision of the Virginia Real Estate Commission was proper and, accordingly, is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By JUDGE CHARLES H. DUFF

For decision is an appeal of an Order of the Virginia Real Estate Commission filed pursuant to the Administrative Process Act, Section 9-6.14:1 et seq.

The issues on review and the duty of the reviewing Court are set out in Section 9-6.14:17. It is apropos to note that the duty of the Court with respect to issues of fact is 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 as it did. Also, the Court is mandated by the statute to take due account of the presumption of official regularity, the experience and specialized competence of the agency and the purposes of the basic law under which the agency has acted.

Upon a careful review of the transcript of the hearing of July 8, 1980, the report of the hearing officer, and the authorities cited at argument, I am of the opinion that the decision of the Virginia Real Estate Commission was proper and, accordingly, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Va. Cir. 45, 1982 Va. Cir. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/honeycutt-v-virginia-real-estate-commission-vaccarlington-1982.