(a) A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within an agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case shall be entitled to judicial review under this section and 4.1041 through 4.1044.
(b) This section does not limit the utilization of, or the scope of, judicial review available under other means of review, redress, relief or trial de novo provided by law, and judicial review may not be sought under this section and 4.1041 through 4.1044 of any proceeding for which, or by any person for whom, the law specifically provides other adequate means of judicial review.
(c) A preliminary, procedural or intermediate agency action or ruling shall be immediately reviewable only if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy.History: 1969, PL 11-55.
Appeal under provisions of 4.1040 et seq. From the final decision of the personnel advisory board permitted. Reed v. Personnel Advisory Board, ASR (1977)
Employer’s appeal from decision of Workmen’s Compensation Board awarding benefits to claimant could not be had under this subchapter where 32.0652 specifically provided for review of a decision of the board if the decision was not in accordance with the law. In re Westerlund v. Scanlan, 4 ASR 998 (1975).
Insofar as territorial statute prescribing final decision by administrative agency as prerequisite to judicial review simply gave the agency the right to insist on exhaustion of its internal review procedures, it was waivable by the agency, but insofar as it incorporated the rule that courts should decide real controversies it could not be waived. A.S.C.A. § 4.1040(a). Pago Petroleum Products, Inc, v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75 (1989).
Administrative agency decision is final, for the limited purpose of giving rise to a justifiable controversy, even if there were procedural defects in the process by which it was made, provided that it is meant to reflect the settled position of the agency and leaves the parties genuinely adverse. A.S.C.A. § 4.1040(a). Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75 (1989).
Decision by board of directors of administrative agency to reject bidder's claim of entitlement to fuel supply contract was final and gave rise to a justifiable controversy, notwithstanding the absence of a quorum at the board meeting, where (1) agency's chief executive officer implemented the decision by canceling the original award and issuing an invitation for new bids, and (2) in subsequent litigation, agency did not assert its continuing discretion to review the decision but instead sought a judicial order that the new bidding process go forward. A.S.C.A. § 4.1040(a). Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75 (1989).
Administrative agency decision to issue a new invitation for bids for fuel supply contract was a final decision rejecting bidder's contention that it had a right to the contract as a result of being the low bidder in the original bidding procedure. A.S.C.A. § 4.1040(a). Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75 (1989).
Whether an administrative agency decision was lawfully and whether it was final are separate questions; a decision may be substantively illegal and yet be the real and settled position of the agency. A.S.C.A. § 4.1040(a). Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75 (1989).
An interlocutory appeal of an agency action or ruling is available only if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy. A.S.C.A. § 4.1040(c) . Sala v. American Samoa Government, 20 A.S.R.2d 80 (1992).
Being an extraordinary remedy, a preliminary injunction is granted only when clearly warranted and may be denied when administrative remedies have not been exhausted. A.S.C.A. § 4.1040. Le Vaomatua v. American Samoa Government, 23 A.S.R.2d 11 (1992).
A preliminary injunction is unwarranted when an environmental organization fails to plead specific harm to itself or its members and when it did not seek a stop order from the territorial Development Planning office. A.S.C.A. §§ 4.1040, 24.0505(c). Le Vaomatua v. American Samoa Government, 23 A.S.R.2d 11 (1992).