Laserfiche WebLink
substantial evidence, the reviewing court must view the record in the light most <br />favorable to the agency. Id. <br />Administrative action taken pursuant to an agency's statutory authority is <br />entitled to a presumption of validity. Id. at 1386; Charnes v. Lobato, 743 P.2d 27, <br />32 (Colo. 1987). A trial court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the <br />agency when there is substantial evidence in the record to support the agency's <br />decision. Board of Assessment Appeals v. Colorado Arlberg Club, 762 P.2d 146, <br />151 (Colo. 1988); Charnes, supra at 32; Western Colorado Congress v. Umetco <br />Minerals Corp., 919 P.2d 887, 891 (Colo. App. 1996). <br />Where "the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are conflicting, ... the <br />reviewing court may not displace an administrative agency's choice between two <br />fairly conflicting views, even though the court could justifiably have made a <br />different choice had the matter been before it de novo. " Charnes, 743 P.2d at 32, <br />quoting Walton v. Banking Bd., 541 P.2d 1254, 1256 (Colo. App. 1975). <br />ARGUMENT <br />I. THE COURT MAY NOT CONSIDER EVIDENCE NOT BEFORE <br />THE BOARD AT THE TIME OF THE DECISION. <br />In reviewing a decision by the Board, the Court must decide the appeal <br />"solely on the record made before the board." C.R.S. § 34 -33- 128(2). See also <br />C.R.S. § 24- 4- 106(6). "District Court review of an administrative agency <br />{00145923 2 1 13 <br />