Laserfiche WebLink
case for further proceedings, and afford such other relief <br />as maybe appropriate. <br />(emphasis added). <br />The MLRB's approval of the Application and the District Court's <br />affirmation were erroneous under the governing statutes and the standard of review <br />applicable to the District Court. <br />B. THE DISTRICT COURT APPLIED AN ERRONEOUS <br />STANDARD OF REVIEW TO THE RECORD ON APPEAL BY <br />REQUIRING "SOME RATIONAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE <br />BOARD'S CONCLUSION" INSTEAD OF REQUIRING <br />"SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD AS A WHOLE" AS <br />MANDATED BY § 24-4-106(7), C.R.S. <br />As the Applicant's Answer Brief correctly states, this Court reviews the <br />MLRB's decision. "The standard of review of an agency action by an appellate <br />court is the same as for a district court reviewing such action." Martinez v. Bd. of <br />Comm 'rs of the Hous. Auth. Of the City of Pueblo, 992 P. 692, 696 (Colo. Ct. App. <br />1999). The standard for review of an agency action appealed to the District Court <br />and to this Court under § 24-4-106, C.R.S. is found in subparagraph (7). That <br />paragraph requires "substantial evidence when the record is considered as a <br />whole." <br />The District Court stated: <br />The standard for review is whether there is some rational <br />evidence supyorting the Board's conclusion and there is <br />factual information in the record to that effect. <br />2 <br />