Cited by

Bd., that she was not given an adequate opportunity to prepare because she did not have notice the court would hear evidence at the August 16, 2022 hearing.

Based on the evidence presented at that hearing, the ALJ determined that the ASLD erred by not giving Marsh written notice about its new reasoning for denying the applications

Bd., ¶ 13 (App. 2007), Appellants assert that a court may not substitute its judgment for the agency’s decision on factual issues or matters that involve agency expertise.

Bd., ¶ 13 (App. 2007) (citing Siler v. Ariz. Dep’t of Real Estate, ¶ 14 (App. 1998)); see also Brodsky v. City of Phx.

Bd., ¶ 13 (App. 2007) (“On appeal, we review de novo the superior court’s judgment, reaching the same underlying issue as the superior court: whether the administrative action was not supported by substantial evidence or was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or involved an abuse of discretion.”).

Bd., -31, ¶ 15 (App. 2007) (noting the flexible nature of due process does not require elaborate administrative hearings as long as there is notice and opportunity to be heard) (citing Cleveland Bd.

Bd., Siler v. Ariz. Dep’t of Real Estate

Bd., -31, ¶¶ 14-15 , -60 (App.2007) (“An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property be preceded by notice and an opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.”) (citation and internal quotation omitted).