Laserfiche WebLink
An agency decision may not be overruled on judicial review if <br />it was supported by substantial evidence in the record taken as a <br />whole. Leavell-Rio Grande Central Associates v. Board of <br />Assessment Aooeals, 753 P.2d 797 (Colo. App. 1988); Lockhart v. <br />Board of Education, 735 P.2d 913 (Colo. App. 1986); DeSCala v. <br />Motor Vehicle Div. of the Deo't. of Revenue, 667 P.2d 1360 (Colo. <br />1983). Substantial evidence has been defined in Colorado as <br />evidence "of a character which would warrant a reasonable belief <br />in the existence of facts supporting a particular finding ... ." <br />Rathburn v. Industrial Comm'n, 39 Colo. App. 433, 5E~6 P.2d 372 <br />(1977). In determining whether the agency based its decision upon <br />substantial evidence, the court may not substitute its judgment for <br />that of the agency in determining the weight of certain evidence. <br />A reviewing court must look at all relevant factors supporting the <br />action and may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. <br />Bennett v. Price, 167 Colo. 168, 446 P.2d 419 (1968). The burden <br />of establishing that the agency's action was not supported by <br />substantial evidence is clearly upon the party challenging the <br />agency action. atlantic and Pacific Ins. Co. v. Barney, 666 P.2d <br />163 (Colo. App. 1983). In determining whether the agency's action <br />has a reasonable basis in law, the agency's action is entitled to <br />a presumption of validity and regularity which may only be overcome <br />by a preponderance of the evidence to the contrary. deKoevend v. <br />Board of Education. 688 P.2d 219 (Colo. 1984); Public Utilities <br />Comm'n v. District Court, 163 Colo. 462, 431 P.2d 773 (1967). <br />- 9 - <br />