Mootness is not a ground for judicial review of administrative action because it refers to a situation where the issue in dispute has become irrelevant or academic, making it inappropriate for the court to rule on the matter.

In cases of judicial review, the courts have a variety of remedies available to them, including injunctions, declaratory judgments, and writs of mandamus. These remedies allow the courts to order the administrative agency to take or refrain from taking certain actions, to declare the agency's actions unlawful, or to compel the agency to perform a specific duty.

The courts play a crucial role in ensuring that administrative agencies act fairly and within the scope of their authority. They do this by reviewing the agency's actions for errors of law, ensuring that the agency has followed proper procedures, and ensuring that the agency's actions are supported by substantial evidence.

Whether the agency's decision was politically motivated is not a factor that courts consider when determining whether an administrative agency's action was arbitrary and capricious. The courts are concerned with the legality of the agency's action, not with its political motivations.

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires a party to exhaust all available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. This means that the party must first go through the administrative process and appeal any adverse decisions before filing a lawsuit in court.

De novo review is not a type of judicial review because it involves the court conducting a completely new review of the evidence and making its own decision on the merits of the case. In contrast, arbitrary and capricious review, substantial evidence review, and abuse of discretion review involve the court reviewing the administrative agency's decision to determine whether it was lawful and reasonable.

The standard of review for an administrative agency's findings of fact is substantial evidence review. This means that the court will uphold the agency's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The standard of review for an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute is de novo review. This means that the court will review the agency's interpretation of the statute to determine whether it is correct.

The standard of review for an administrative agency's decision to take or refrain from taking a particular action is abuse of discretion review. This means that the court will uphold the agency's decision unless it finds that the agency abused its discretion.

Damages are not a remedy that a court can order in a judicial review proceeding. The remedies available in judicial review proceedings are typically limited to injunctions, declaratory judgments, and writs of mandamus.

The purpose of judicial review of administrative action is to ensure that administrative agencies act fairly and within the scope of their authority, to protect the rights of individuals and businesses, and to promote transparency and accountability in government.

Violation of the Constitution is not a ground for judicial review of administrative action under the APA. The APA only provides for judicial review of administrative action that is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

The doctrine of stare decisis is the principle that courts should follow the precedents set by higher courts. This principle helps to ensure that the law is applied consistently and predictably.

A writ of certiorari is used to review a lower court's decision or an administrative agency's decision. A writ of mandamus is used to compel a lower court or an administrative agency to take a specific action.

The Supreme Court has the final say on all judicial reviews of administrative action. This means that the Supreme Court's decision on a judicial review of administrative action is binding on all lower courts.