Cited by

See DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, (explaining that a reviewing court may not substitute its own judgment for the agency’s on matters committed to agency discretion).

And courts had to affirm agency findings even “if either of two inconsistent factual conclusions [were] supported by the record.” E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 35 (App. 2003) (citing DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, ).

.” DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, -37 (1991).

See DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, (recognizing that generally, failure to raise an issue before an administrative tribunal precludes judicial review of that issue unless it is jurisdictional).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 We recount the facts in the “light most favorable to the Commission’s decision.” DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n

.” DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n

DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, (A court may not “function as a ‘super agency’ and substitute its own judgment for that of the agency where factual questions and agency expertise are involved.”).

A court may not “function as a ‘super agency’ and substitute its own judgment for that of the agency where factual questions and agency expertise are involved.” DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, (citation omitted).

¶ 13 (App. 2004) ("A statute is not void for vagueness because it fails to explicitly define a term or because it can be interpreted in more than one way."); -40 (App. 1984) (finding waiver where one due process claim raised on appeal was not raised before the racing commission even though another due process claim had been presented).

DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, - 36 (App. 1984); (“The purpose of judicial review of an administrative decision is not to decide whether the record supports appellant’s version of the facts.”).

But we do not reweigh evidence; if a conflict exists, “it is the Commission’s constitutional responsibility, when engaged in its ratemaking power, to view conflicting evidence and make determinations accordingly.” Sierra Club — Grand Canyon Chapter v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 26 (App. 2015); see also DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, (“If two inconsistent factual conclusions 6 An exception, not applicable here, exists for “the granting of free or reduced rate transportation” to qualifying classes of

DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n

of Regents, and DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, ).

See DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm'n , , 340, ("[F]ailure to raise an issue before an administrative tribunal precludes judicial review of that issue on appeal unless the issue is jurisdictional in nature.").

Shorey v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 14 (App. 2015); DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, -36 (App. 1984).

for Justice & Fairness v. Ariz. Sec’y of State’s Office, ¶ 17 (App. 2014), and will affirm if the Commission’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, see DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, -36 (App. 1984).

Exam'rs, ¶ 7 (App. 2002)

See DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, (“The general rule is that failure to raise an issue before an administrative tribunal precludes judicial review of that issue on appeal unless the issue is jurisdictional in nature.”).

DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, -36 (App. 1984).

We review the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the Board’s decision and will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency regarding factual questions and agency expertise, De-Groot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n

See DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, see also U.S. Parking Sys.

DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, -36 (App. 1984).

10 STATE v. RIVERA Decision of the Court upheld even if there is substantial evidence to support two inconsistent conclusions, and may be reversed only where there is no substantial evidence to support it) (citing DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, and Webster v. State Bd.