Cited by

¶ 13 (App. 2007); -52 (App. 1981).

R7-2- 1308(C) ("Individuals found to have engaged in unprofessional or immoral conduct shall be subject to, and may be disciplined by, the Board.")

¶10 An administrative agency’s determination will be set aside as arbitrary and capricious only if an appellate court determines “there has been unreason[ed] action, without consideration and in disregard for facts and circumstances.”

452, , 1110 (App. 1981) (quoting Tucson Public Schs., Dist.

As such, the Council could recommend modification of the agency’s chosen discipline only if the Director’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” (“[W]here there is room for two opinions, the action is not arbitrary or capricious if exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.”).

Arbitrary and capricious agency action has been described as “unreason[ed] action, without consideration and in disregard for facts and circumstances[].” quoting Tucson Pub.

E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 35

Arbitrary and capricious agency action has been described as “‘unreason[ed] action, without consideration and in disregard for facts and circumstances.’” (quoting Tucson Pub.

We instead review the record to determine whether there has been “unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard for facts and circumstances; where there is room for two opinions, the action is not arbitrary or capricious if exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.” see also E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 35, (substantial evidence exists to support agency decision if either of two in

Arbitrary and capricious agency action has been described as “unreason[ed] action, without consideration and in disregard for facts and circumstances.” (quoting Tucson Pub.

Further, even if “there is room for two opinions and we believe that an erroneous conclusion has been reached,” we will not set aside the decision of an administrative agency unless “there has been ‘unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard for facts and circumstances.’ ” , (quoting Tucson Pub.

See Callen, 216 Ariz. at 502, ¶ 9 , 168 P.3d at 910 ; , ( , ).

fact, this court does not substitute its conclusion for that of the [agency], but reviews the record only to determine whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision and whether the [agency] exercised its discretion reasonably and with ‘due consideration.’” , ( , ).

11 though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.’ ( and Green, 17 Ariz. App. at 94, 498 P.2d at 864).

(“[T]he action is not arbitrary or capricious if exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has *136 been reached.”) (quoting Tucson Pub.

at 372 , 723 P.2d at 721 ( , in turn quoting 17 Cameron St.

¶ 28 , the licensee argued that a liquor license revocation was excessive and thus arbitrary and capricious.

See generally, 3 Arizona Appellate Handbook, § 32.3.9.2.4.1, at 32-30 (2d ed.1998); , (review for arbitrary and capricious action is for “unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard for facts and circumstances”).

etermines the evidence supports the charge, thus war *569 ranting some action by the appointing authority that is not otherwise prohibited, the Merit Commission may modify the order only if it further determines that the action taken is “ ‘so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.’ ” , quoting 17 Cameron St.

[W]e review the record to determine whether there has been ‘unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard for facts and circumstances; where there is room for two opinions, the action is not arbitrary or capricious if exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.’ , (quoting Tucson Pub.

ers, “we review the record to determine whether there has been ‘unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard for facts and circumstances; where there is room for two opinions, the action is not arbitrary or capricious if exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion had been reached’.” , (quoting Tucson Public Schools, Dist.

As to questions of fact, this court does not substitute its conclusion for that of the Board, but reviews the record only to determine whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision and whether the Board exercised its discretion reasonably and with “due consideration.” , Havasu Heights Ranch and Development Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Products, Inc., , (whether substantial evidence exists is a question of law).