id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-20648	Rompala, Joseph P.	Survey of Indiana Administrative Law	2015	26	.pdf	application/pdf	11537	648	62	The court concluded that HRC had acted within a reasonable time of the motion to dismiss for lack of standing thus making the substitution timely.158 The court of appeals also responded to Myers’ argument that HRC could not use Trial Rule 17 to amend the petition for review after the statutory thirty-day deadline had passed.159 In rejecting this argument, the court examined other cases in which courts had allowed the amendment of petitions outside statutory time limits, but within the time limits set by court rule, to “relate back” to the original filing date of a petition.160 Noting that “a court rule providing for time in addition to that permitted by AOPA is authorized by AOPA, and presents no conflict with the statute[,]” the court of appeals concluded that Rule 17 allowed for the substitution of the real party in interest following the timely filing of a petition for judicial review even if the petition had originally been filed by a party without standing as required by statute.161 As the foregoing cases illustrate, even though a bright-line rule has been imposed with regard to compliance with one statutory procedure to obtain judicial review, imperfect compliance with the statute is not always a bar to review.162 Practitioners, however, would do well to note the repeated emphasis 152. [Vol. 48:1147 agencies as executive bodies empowered by the legislature and is thus derived from the doctrine of the separation of powers.3 While it does not apply to all agencies, Indiana’s Administrative Orders and Procedures Act (“AOPA”) sets out the basic, principled limitations placed on judicial review of administrative decisions by declaring that a court may only overturn a decision by an administrative agency when the decision is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (4) without observance of procedure required by law; or (5) unsupported by substantial evidence.4 The following section reviews how courts have reviewed certain agency actions within this structure and how courts have drawn the line between the role of the court and the role of the agency.	cache/inlawrev-20648.pdf	txt/inlawrev-20648.txt