This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-07-26 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| While stability in the law, particularly in the business field, is desirable, there is no demand that the NTC slavishly follow precedent.[82] However, we think it essential, for the sake of clarity and intellectual honesty, that if an administrative agency decides inconsistently with previous action, that it explain thoroughly why a different result is warranted, or if need be, why the previous standards should no longer apply or should be overturned.[83] Such explanation is warranted in order to sufficiently establish a decision as having rational basis.[84] Any inconsistent decision lacking thorough, ratiocination in support may be struck down as being arbitrary. And any decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity.[85] | |||||