Cited by

¶ 20 (App. 2000); see also Holcomb, 247 Ariz. at 443 ¶ 9.

¶ 20 (App. 2000) (“[C]onflicting evidence can still be ‘substantial.’”).

¶ 20 (App. 2000) (recognizing that conflicting evidence can be substantial evidence).

§ 12-910 offers a “safety net for the unusual case in which new evidence, had it been presented in the administrative proceeding, would have changed the 13 OSBORNE v. AZ MEDICAL BOARD Decision of the Court decision.” ¶ 18 (App. 2000).

n, (citations omitted), and we will not re-weigh 4 DUARTE v. AMAZON/AM ZURICH Decision of the Court the evidence in the record “to see if we would find some evidence more or less persuasive or give it more or less significance,” ¶ 20, (citation omitted).

¶ 20, Baca v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

We review this issue de novo, , 408 ¶ 8, beginning with the presumption that the statute is constitutional.

Nevertheless, the court’s "duty is to determine from all the evidence whether the administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence.” ¶ 2

¶ 29 , (using Schillerstrom test for excessiveness, liquor license revocation was not excessive); Siler, 193 Ariz. at 379, ¶ 19 , 972 P.2d at 1015 (applying Schillerstrom test, suspension of real estate licenses and other sanctions were not excessive penalty); Lathrop v. Ariz. Bd.