Laserfiche WebLink
permitted only if there is "no competent evidence" to support the decision. Id.; <br />Public Employees' Retirement Assoc. v. Stermole, 874 P.2d 444 (Colo. App. 1993). <br />"Substantial evidence" does not mean "any competent evidence." C Bar H, <br />Inc. v. Board of Health in and for Jefferson County, 56 P.3d at 1142. Instead, it <br />means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to <br />support a conclusion," Id., which is more than merely "Some evidence in Some <br />particulars." Lassner v. Civil Service Comm'n, 177 Colo. at 259, 493 P.2d at 1089 <br />(capitalization in original). <br />B. The MLRB erred as a matter of law in granting the Permit when <br />the Applicaut failed to comply with applicable provisions of the <br />Reclamation Act and the Construction Materials Rules regarding local <br />permits. <br />As set forth above, this Court's review of the MLRB's interpretation of rules <br />and statutes is, as a matter of law, de novo. C Bar H, Inc. v. Board of Health in and <br />for Jefferson County, 56 P.3d at 1192. "In construing a statute, we must give effect <br />to the plain meaning of the words contained therein...Statutes are to be construed <br />as a whole, giving effect to every word." Mission Viejo Co. v. Douglas County Bd. <br />of Equalization, 881 P.2d 462, 464 (Colo. App. 1994). A court must "interpret <br />every word [of a statute], rendering none superfluous." Sooper Credit Union v. <br />Sholar Group Architects, P. C., 113 P.3d 768, 771 (Colo. 2005). "If the statute is <br />is <br />