Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency fact findings: courts must uphold them unless they are clearly erroneous on the whole record or arbitrary or capricious.

Wolf v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2002-05-28(j)

Such findings of fact or inferences reasonably drawn therefrom must be upheld unless the court finds them to be clearly erroneous in view of the whole record or arbitrary or capricious and, therefore, an abuse of the hearing officer’s discretion. General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(i) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on the weight of factual evidence.

Harbec v. Conn. Dept. of Consumer Prot., No. Cv 02-0512591 S (Jun. 5, 2002) · filed 2002-06-05(i)

"The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." General Statutes § 4-183 (i).

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing factual evidence and requires it to affirm an agency decision unless the appellant's substantial rights were prejudiced by a decision clearly erroneous in view of the substantial evidence.

Purtill v. Glastonbury Zba, No. Cv00-080-00-13 (Jul. 16, 2002) · filed 2002-07-16(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency decisions to whether the agency acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion.

Barrett v. Dss, No. Cv 01 0510592s (Jul. 24, 2002) · filed 2002-07-24(j)

Under General Statutes § 4-183 (j), such review is limited to whether the agency, m light of the evidence before it, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion in reaching its decision.

Section 4-183 (j) limits judicial review to whether the agency acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion in light of the evidence before it.

Corcoran v. Connecticut Dss, No. Cv 01 0511317s (Aug. 14, 2002) · filed 2002-08-14(j)

Under General Statutes § 4-183 (j), the court's review is limited to whether the agency, in light of the evidence before it, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion in reaching its decision.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Slootskin v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 2002-09-24(j)

A court, in reviewing an administrative agency’s decision, cannot “substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. . . .” General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of an agency decision to whether the agency acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion.

Roto Rooter v. Dept. Consumer Protection, No. Cv 02 0513768s (Oct. 31, 2002) · filed 2002-10-31(j)

Under the UAPA, General Statutes § 4-183 (j), the court must review the claims of the plaintiff under the following test: Judicial review of an administrative agency's action is governed by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act . . . and the scope of that review is very restricted. . . . With regard to questions of fact, it is [not] the function of the trial court . . . to retry the case or to substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency. . . . Even as to questions of law, the court's ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the agency has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of an agency decision to whether the agency acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion.

Isgut v. Ct Medical Examining Board, No. Cv 02 05146 37 S (Feb. 11, 2003) · filed 2003-02-11(j)

Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j), the court's review is limited to whether the agency, in light of the evidence before it, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion in reaching its decision.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency decisions: courts may not retry the case or substitute their judgment for the agency’s, and review whether the agency acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion.

Wiese v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 2004-04-27(j)

Neither this court nor the trial court may retry the case or substitute its judgment for that of the commission. Even as to questions of law, the court’s ultimate duty is to decide only whether, in light of the evidence, the agency acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on the weight of factual evidence.

American Car Rental, Inc. v. Commissioner of Consumer Protection · filed 2005-04-12(j)

Neither the trial court nor this court may substitute its own judgment for the defendant’s as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

Section 4-183 does not provide judicial review of a Psychiatric Security Review Board ruling on its own jurisdiction when that ruling is not appealable under § 17a-597.

Sastrom v. Psychiatric Security Review Board · filed 2008-01-29

Therefore, the precedent established in Greater Bridgeport Transit District that “[w]here there is in place a mechanism for adequate judicial review, such as that contained in § 4-183, [i]t is [the] general rule that an administrative agency may and must determine whether it has jurisdiction in a particular situation” is inapplicable in the present case because the statutory framework of § 4-183 does not afford a mechanism for adequate judicial review of the defendant’s determination of its own jurisdiction.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of an agency’s final decision; a decision reasonably supported by the evidence must be sustained.

Moraski v. Connecticut Board of Examiners of Embalmers & Funeral Directors · filed 2009-04-21(j)

“General Statutes § 4-183 (j) ... of the [UAPA] establishes a ... restricted scope of judicial review of the [board’s] final decision and order.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of an agency’s factual findings to whether substantial evidence supports them and the resulting conclusions are reasonable.

Stash v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2010-06-29(j)

[R]eview of an administrative agency decision requires a court to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency’s findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable.

Section 4-183 (i) confines judicial review of an administrative appeal to the agency record, so the court cannot consider evidence first offered on appeal.

Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 2011-06-28(i)

In so arguing, the plaintiff misapprehends the scope of review of an administrative appeal, which is confined to the record. See General Statutes § 4-183 (i).

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency decisions: a court may not reweigh factual evidence and must affirm unless specified errors have prejudiced the appellant’s substantial rights.

F.M. v. Commissioner of Children & Families · filed 2013-06-25(j)

Section 4-183 (j) provides in relevant part: “The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are ... (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. . . .”

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency’s on the weight of evidence concerning factual questions.

L. D. v. Commissioner of Children & Families · filed 2022-12-27(j)

Furthermore, § 4-183 (j) provides in relevant part that ‘‘[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on ques- tions of fact,’’ and, on appeal, ‘‘[n]either this court nor the trial court may retry the case . . . .’’ (Internal quo- tation marks omitted.) Natasha B. v. Dept. of Chil- dren & Families, supra, 189 Conn. App. 403.

Section 4-183 (j) limits judicial review of agency fact-finding; a court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the agency’s.

Romanelli v. Dept. of Social Services · filed 2024-06-11(j)

The hearing officer determined that Mendoza’s affidavit and testimony were not sufficient to establish incapacity, and we cannot retry the case or substitute our own judgment for that of the hearing officer with respect to the weight of the evidence. See, e.g., Northwest Hills Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 201 Conn. App. 128, 147–48, 241 A.3d 733 (2020); see also General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183 limits judicial review of agency factfinding: a court may not retry the case or reweigh the evidence, and must uphold findings supported by substantial evidence.

Daly v. Dept. of Children & Families · filed 2025-03-18(j)

We are mindful of our limited review pursuant to § 4-183, that we may not retry the matter or substitute our judgment for that of the hearing officer on the weight of the evidence or questions of fact, and that our ultimate duty is to determine whether the hearing officer, in issuing her order, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in an abuse of her discretion in view of all of the evidence.

Section 4-183(g) permits a reviewing court to use the Richardson standard to assess the trustworthiness of hearsay evidence before an agency.

Altholtz v. Connecticut Dental Commission · filed 1985-06-18(g)

That court felt, however, as do we, that the standard set forth in Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971), is not irrelevant in applying General Statutes § 4-183 (g).

Section 4-183(g)(5) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Briggs v. State Employees Retirement Commission · filed 1988-02-23(g)(5)

The dispositive issue of this appeal is whether the decision of the defendant was “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record . . . .’’General Statutes § 4-183 (g) (5). We conclude that the decision was clearly erroneous, and we find error.

Section 4-183(g) requires a court reviewing a DPUC rate order to examine the administrative record under a limited standard of review.

Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Department of Public Utility Control · filed 1991-05-21(g)

Indeed, the incorporation of § 16-19e (a) (4) into § 4-183 (g) requires the trial court to conduct a statutorily circumscribed inquiry, based on the administrative record, into the merits of the administrative decision.

Section 4-183(j)(5) requires a plaintiff challenging an agency decision to show that it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Reilly v. Delponte, Commissioner, No. 305588 (Jun. 25, 1991) · filed 1991-06-25(j)(5)

The scope of review by the court in an appeal of this nature is quite limited. The plaintiff must show that the decision of the defendant is "clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record." Connecticut General Statutes Section 4-183 (j)(5).

Section 4-183(j) directs the reviewing court to examine the record for substantial support for an agency’s findings rather than decide the facts itself.

Bradley v. West Haven Inland Wetlands Agency, No. 29 79 10 (Jul. 5, 1991) · filed 1991-07-05(j)

It is not the function of the court to adjudicate the facts. It needs only, examine the record to determine if the ultimate findings were supported by substantial findings. See Connecticut General Statutes Section 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j)(5) permits reversal of an agency finding that is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Dorman v. Delponte · filed 1990-09-21(j)(5)

This appeal is governed by General Statutes § 4-183 (j). Since the claim is that the plaintiff did not refuse to take the statutory test, the issue on review is whether the conclusion reached by the hearing officer is “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.” General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5).

Section 4-183(j)(5) permits reversal of an agency decision that is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Fromer v. Boyer-Napert Partnership · filed 1990-11-19(j)(5)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j), in effect at the commencement of this appeal; see Fee v. Carothers, 23 Conn. App. 435, 580 A.2d 1244 (1990); sets forth the standard of proof required in such an appeal. Subdivision (5) of the statute allows the agency’s decision to be reversed if it is “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.”

Section 4-183(j) applies the substantial evidence rule to judicial review of agency fact finding.

Fromer v. Reynolds Metals Development Corp., No. 51 29 67 (May 24, 1991) · filed 1991-05-24(j)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact finding under General Statutes Section 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(g) limits judicial review of an agency decision to whether substantial and competent evidence supports the tribunal’s findings and whether the tribunal exceeded its authority.

Commission on Hum. Rights v. Gen. Dynamics, No. 517054 (Nov. 22, 1991) · filed 1991-11-22(g)

The court is thus limited to determining whether the tribunal's findings were supported by "substantial and competent evidence," and whether the tribunal exceeded its authority. General Statutes Section 4-183 (g). The court cannot try the case de novo, adjudicate the facts, or substitute its own discretion for that of the tribunal.

Section 4-183(j)(5) permits a court to set aside an agency decision that is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Marshall v. DelPonte · filed 1992-04-14(j)(5)

In determining whether an administrative decision is “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record”; General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5); “the reviewing court must apply a standard similar to that applied in judicial review of a jury verdict. Under this restrictive standard, the court must consider whether the evidence affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can reasonably be inferred.” ... The trial court applied these standards properly in holding that the commissioner’s ruling was clearly erroneous.

Section 4-183(j)(5) permits a court to overturn an agency decision when the administrative record lacks reliable, probative and substantial evidence supporting its factual findings.

Labenski v. Goldberg · filed 1994-03-15(j)(5)

We thus conclude that there is no reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency’s findings of basic fact.

Section 4-183(j)(5) permits reversal of an agency decision that is clearly erroneous in light of the substantial evidence in the record.

Furhman v. Department of Transportation · filed 1994-03-22(j)(5)

Therefore, the DOT ruling was supported by substantial evidence and should not have been reversed.

Section 4-183(j)(5) permits reversal when an agency decision prejudices substantial rights because its findings are clearly erroneous in view of the evidence in the whole record.

Nelseco Navigation Co. v. Department of Liquor Control · filed 1994-05-17(j)(5)

The trial court’s decision must be affirmed unless we find that substantial rights of the plaintiffs have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are, inter alia, clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the whole record. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5). We conclude that the trial court, in affirming the defendant’s decision and dismissing the appeal, improperly determined that there was reliable, probative, or substantial evidence on the record to support the defendant’s decision.

Section 4-183 permits review of constitutional defects in a final agency decision, although review generally uses the administrative record and defers to agency factfinding.

Amsat Cable Ltd. v. Cablevision of Connecticut Ltd. Partnership · filed 1993-09-10

In any event, while Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4-183 provides that, in an appeal of a final administrative decision to the Connecticut Superior Court, judicial review is generally limited to the facts presented in the administrative record, see Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4-183Q), and that “[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact,” id., the statute also provides that the reviewing court shall not affirm if it finds “that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are,” inter alia, “[i]n violation of constitutional or statutory provisions_” Thus, by the terms of § 16-333a, any allegedly constitutionally under-compensated taking approved by the administrative agency can be challenged on appeal.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency decisions and requires the court to affirm unless specified agency errors prejudice the appellant’s substantial rights.

Kureczka v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1994-01-18(j)

In our assessment of whether the plaintiffs have met their burden of proof, we are guided by the limitations that the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act imposes upon judicial review of the determinations of the FOIC.

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to modify or reverse an agency decision when specified errors prejudice the appellant’s substantial rights.

Local 1183 of Council No. 4 v. State Board of Labor Relations · filed 1994-02-08(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) “permits modification or reversal of an agency’s decision if substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) [i]n violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency factfinding and permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision for specified errors, including abuse of discretion.

Town of Newtown v. Keeney, No. Cv 92-0310804-S (May 16, 1994) · filed 1994-05-16(j)

The scope of review is limited by Sec. 4-183 (j). The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. However, the court may reverse or modify a decision if it finds that the decision is: "(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions . . . (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion."

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency decisions and requires courts to respect agency findings supported by substantial evidence.

Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1993-12-21(j)

Second, the FOIC argues that the trial court should have found that, under General Statutes § 4-183 (j), ... the administrative record contained substantial evidence to support the commission’s order of disclosure and that its order is justified by an appropriately limited construction of the “invasion of personal privacy” exception found in § 1-19 (b) (2). We agree with both contentions.

Section 4-183 (j) (5) places the burden on an administrative appellant to show that the agency’s decision was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Schallenkamp v. DelPonte · filed 1994-03-17(j)(5)

As in any administrative appeal, the plaintiff bore the burden of proving that the commissioner’s decision to suspend her nonresident operating privilege was “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.”

Section 4-183 (j) (5) requires a trial court to affirm the motor vehicle commissioner’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous in view of the whole record.

O'Rourke v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 1994-02-01(j)(5)

The factual findings of the commissioner of motor vehicles must be affirmed by the trial court unless they are “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.” General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5). The trial court in this case applied the proper standard of review.

Section 4-183(j) requires courts reviewing agency fact-finding to uphold findings supported by substantial evidence.

Levy v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1994-08-16(j)

Under General Statutes § 4-183 (j),... the substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding.

Section 4-183(j) requires agency factual findings to be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

Regional Sch. Dis. 8 v. St. Dept./ed., No. Cv 93 005 26 46 (Sep. 16, 1994) · filed 1994-09-16(j)

While those general principles impose a significant burden on an appellant seeking reversal of an agency's factual findings, the court may nevertheless not allow such findings to stand unless they are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j) requires a court reviewing an agency decision to leave findings supported by substantial evidence undisturbed.

City of Stamford v. Board of Labor Rel., No. Cv930131199 (Sep. 23, 1994) · filed 1994-09-23(j)

This appeal is governed by General Statutes § 4-183 (j). ... If the findings are supported by substantial evidence, they cannot be disturbed. ... This court finds that based on the record presented to the court, the Board's actions were justified by the evidence.

Section 4-183(j)(5) requires a court to reverse an agency decision that is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Bernier v. Commissioner of Motor Veh., No. Cv 94 070 54 47 (May 10, 1995) · filed 1995-05-10(j)(5)

Although those familiar rules rightly circumscribe the court's review of the hearing officer's fact finding, they do not overrule the court's power to reverse a decision that is not based on substantial evidence. Rather, § 4-183 (j)(5) requires such action whenever the court finds that the agency decision is "clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) requires a court reviewing agency factfinding to apply the substantial evidence standard without reweighing the evidence.

Harwin Co. Corp. v. Comm. of Motor Veh., No. Cv 94 070 51 57 (May 16, 1995) · filed 1995-05-16(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." Rather, the court must adhere to the rule of substantial evidence.

Section 4-183(f) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on the weight of factual evidence.

Dufraine v. Commission on Human Rt./opp., No. Cv93-0528541-S (Feb. 8, 1995) · filed 1995-02-08(f)

General Statutes § 4-183 (f) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."

Section 4-183(f) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on the weight of factual evidence.

Scruton v. Commissioner of Motor Veh., No. Cv 94 070 51 37 (Feb. 8, 1995) · filed 1995-02-08(f)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (f) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." In this case, the hearing officer was entitled to weigh the omission of the machine slip in his assessment of the reliability of the report, but he was not required to reject the report solely because of that omission.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on the weight of evidence concerning factual questions.

Fabacher v. Commissioner of Motor Veh., No. Cv940705145 (Mar. 3, 1995) · filed 1995-03-03(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he CT Page 1917 court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to sustain an administrative appeal when an agency decision prejudices substantial rights and is unsupported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious.

Bolin v. Board of Firearms Permit Exmr., No. Cv 94 070 51 54 (Mar. 22, 1995) · filed 1995-03-22(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that the court must sustain the plaintiff's appeal if it finds that his substantial rights have been prejudiced by a decision of the board that is "clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or . . . (is) arbitrary or capricious."

Section 4-183(f) prevents a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on the weight of factual evidence.

Tassmer v. Comm. of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 94 036 16 93 (Apr. 19, 1995) · filed 1995-04-19(f)

General Statutes § 4-183 (f) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the CT Page 3846 weight of the evidence on questions of fact."

Section 4-183(j) prevents a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on the weight of factual evidence.

Peart v. Psychiatric Security Review B., No. Cv 940540988 (May 17, 1995) · filed 1995-05-17(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that (t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." ... The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board, therefore, and must affirm the board's decision.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing an agency's factual evidence when substantial evidence supports its findings.

Gd Development, Inc. v. Addiss, No. Cv 92 050 95 80 (Jun. 14, 1995) · filed 1995-06-14(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall CT Page 7028 not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." ... The court concludes that there was ample and substantial evidence to support the commissioner's factual findings and it may not, therefore, be disturbed.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to affirm an agency decision supported by substantial evidence, even when the appellant offers contrary evidence.

Perry v. Chro, No. Cv 93 053 31 99 (Aug. 21, 1995) · filed 1995-08-21(j)

As indicated, the court has reviewed the record in this case and finds that there is ample and substantial evidence to support the investigator's factual findings and conclusions of law. Accordingly, the court may not disturb those findings and conclusions notwithstanding that the plaintiff offered contrary evidence. In accordance with General Statutes § 4-183 , in such circumstances, the court must affirm the agency's decision.

Section 4-183(j) requires courts reviewing agency factfinding to apply the substantial evidence standard and defer to the agency’s credibility determinations.

Pickles v. Goldberg · filed 1995-06-27(j)

“The ‘substantial evidence’ rule governs judicial review of administrative factfinding under [General Statutes § 4-183 (j)]. . . . Such a standard of review allows less room for judicial scrutiny than does the ‘weight of the evidence’ rule or the ‘clearly erroneous’ rule. ... In determining whether an administrative finding is supported by ‘substantial evidence,’ a court must defer to the [commissioner’s] assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and to the [commissioner’s] right to believe or disbelieve the evidence presented by any witness, even an expert, in whole or in part.”

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on the weight of factual evidence.

Williams v. Bd., Firearms Permit Exam., No. Cv 94 035 80 71 (Jun. 28, 1995) · filed 1995-06-28(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on the weight of factual evidence.

Barnes v. Commissioner of S.S., No. Cv 94 036 79 95 (Jul. 27, 1995) · filed 1995-07-27(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency factfinding: a court may not reweigh the evidence and must affirm unless the findings are clearly erroneous and prejudice substantial rights.

American Federation v. Bd. of Lbr. Rel., No. Cv 94 054 08 12 (Aug. 9, 1995) · filed 1995-08-09(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." ... The board was entitled to give his testimony little weight on the safety issue, and the court may not disturb its conclusions in that regard.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency decisions and bars the court from substituting its judgment for the agency's on factual questions.

City of Stamford v. Freedom of Info. Com., No. Cv94 0136491s (Aug. 14, 1995) · filed 1995-08-14(j)

Nor can it substitute its judgment for the finding of the FOIC that neither claim for exemption was proven at the hearing.

Section 4-183(j)(3) provides the standard of review for an appeal alleging irregularities in an agency’s investigation.

Smith v. Chro, No. Hhd Cv94 0539709 (Sep. 22, 1995) · filed 1995-09-22(j)(3)

This court concludes that the scope of review appropriate to the claim at issue is that applied to appeals based on other irregularities pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(3).

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of an agency decision to whether substantial evidence supports the agency's findings and whether its decision exceeds its authority or constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Leonard v. State, Dept. of Consumer Prot., No. Cv-94-540747 (Sep. 29, 1995) · filed 1995-09-29(j)

The scope of review of an administrative appeal is governed by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, specifically General Statutes § 4-183 (j). Review of an appeal taken from a decision of an administrative agency such as the Department of Consumer Protection is limited to determining whether the agency's findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence and whether the agency's decision exceeds its statutory authority or constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court reviewing an agency decision to be able to identify the agency's factual findings and legal conclusions so it can conduct meaningful review.

Carlin Contr. v. Dept. of Consumer Pro., No. Cv 94 070 52 29 (Oct. 13, 1995) · filed 1995-10-13(j)

If the court is to conduct a meaningful review of an agency's decision in order to determine if it is erroneous in view of the evidence "on the whole record" or if it is the result of an abuse of discretion, as required by 4-183 , the court must be able to ascertain what factual findings the agency made and what conclusions of law the agency drew.

Section 4-183(j) prevents a reviewing court from reweighing the evidence on factual questions when reviewing an agency decision.

Pope v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 93 024 46 30 (Oct. 18, 1995) · filed 1995-10-18(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." If the administrative record contains substantial evidence upon which the hearing officer could reasonably have based his finding, the decision must be affirmed.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court reviewing an agency decision to apply the substantial evidence standard to the final decision maker’s ruling.

Town of Newtown v. Keeney · filed 1995-07-18(j)

This “substantial evidence rule” is embodied in General Statutes § 4-183 © (5) and (6). ... We apply this standard of review not to the decision of the hearing officer but, rather, to the decision of the commissioner, because he is the final decision maker.

Section 4-183(j) requires the court to affirm an agency decision unless an error listed in the section prejudiced the appellant's substantial rights.

Falzetti v. Bd. of Examiners for Barbers, No. Cv 94-0460894s (Jul. 20, 1995) · filed 1995-07-20(j)

The standards of review for administrative appeals are set forth in General Statutes § 4-183 (j) as follows: The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Section 4-183(j)(5) places the burden on the appellant to show that an agency decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the whole record.

Muccino v. Comm., Connecticut, No. Cv 95-0466209s (Aug. 9, 1995) · filed 1995-08-09(j)(5)

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the Commissioner's decision to suspend her non-resident operating privilege was "clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183 (J)(5).

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) require a court reviewing an agency decision to determine whether substantial evidence supports its factual findings and whether its conclusions are reasonable.

Blikre v. Comm. on Human Rights Opp., No. Cv 94-0138849s (Nov. 3, 1995) · filed 1995-11-03(j)(5) and (6)

In an appeal from a finding of "no reasonable cause" by the CHRO, the court is required "to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency's findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable." ... This "substantial evidence rule" is embodied in General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6).

Section 4-183 requires courts reviewing administrative factfinding to uphold findings supported by substantial evidence.

Boober v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 95 070 59 73 (Jan. 3, 1996) · filed 1996-01-03

The `substantial evidence' rule governs judicial CT Page 1189 review of administrative factfinding under General Statutes § 4-183 . . . ... The hearing officer had, therefore, substantial evidence to support his determination that the plaintiff had refused to be tested.

Section 4-183(j) requires substantial evidence in the administrative record to support an agency’s factual findings.

Havican v. Commissioner of Motor Veh., No. Cv 94 012 12 42 (Feb. 28, 1996) · filed 1996-02-28(j)

While those general principles impose a significant burden on an appellant seeking reversal of an agency's factual findings, the court may nevertheless not allow such findings to stand unless they are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) requires substantial evidence review of a CHRO reasonable cause determination even when the agency may dismiss a complaint without a full investigation.

Cohen v. Comm. on Human Rights Opp., No. Hhd Cv-95-0549621 (Mar. 5, 1996) · filed 1996-03-01(j)(5) and (6)

Since the General Assembly did not, however, exempt such reasonable cause determination(s) from the operation of General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6), this court must still consider whether the Commissioner's determination is supported by substantial evidence, while recognizing that full investigation is not required pursuant to the amendment allowing for a more surnmary procedure.

Section 4-183(j) requires courts to defer to agency factfinding when substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision.

Beaulieu v. Commissioner of Inc. Mntn., No. Cv 93 034 23 81 (Mar. 14, 1996) · filed 1996-03-14(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced CT Page 2142 because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) prevents a reviewing court from second-guessing an administrative hearing officer's assessment of the evidence.

MacHnicz v. Commissioner Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 95 070 57 16 (Oct. 31, 1995) · filed 1995-10-31(j)

Of course, the hearing officer could consider the omissions in determining what weight to give the evidence, but this court cannot second-guess the administrative factfinding in that regard. General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency's on the weight of factual evidence.

Rizzuto v. Bd. of Firearms Permit Exams., No. Cv 95 0549519 (Nov. 14, 1995) · filed 1995-11-14(j)

In administrative appeals such as this, it is well established by both statute and a large body of case law that the scope of judicial review is extremely limited: "The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . ." General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j) allows a court to revise or modify an agency decision only when specified errors prejudice an appellant's substantial rights.

Slimp v. State, Dept. of Liquor Control, No. Cv 95-705810 (Nov. 30, 1995) · filed 1995-11-30(j)

A court reviewing the action of an administrative agency may revise or modify the agency's decision only if the "substantial rights of the . . . [appellant] have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: 1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; 2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; 3) made upon unlawful procedure; 4) affected by other error of law; 5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or 6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion." General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing agency factfinding and requires affirmance unless the findings are clearly erroneous and prejudice the appellant's substantial rights.

Hill v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 95 070 58 44 (Dec. 19, 1995) · filed 1995-12-19(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency factfinding: the court may not reweigh evidence and must affirm findings supported by substantial evidence.

East Hartford T. Co. v. Freedom of Inf., No. Cv 95 054 96 02 (Jan. 24, 1996) · filed 1996-01-24(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its CT Page 913 judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." ... The court has reviewed the administrative record in this case and concludes that there was ample and CT Page 914 substantial evidence to support the commission's factual findings.

Section 4-183(j) bars a court from reweighing an agency’s factual findings and requires affirmance unless the decision prejudices substantial rights and is clearly erroneous in light of the whole record.

Bauman v. Chro, No. Cv 94 053 24 74 (Feb. 13, 1996) · filed 1996-02-13(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency fact findings: the court may not reweigh the evidence and must affirm unless the decision prejudices substantial rights and is clearly erroneous on the whole record.

Gaetano v. Connecticut Real Estate Comm., No. Cv 95 055 14 84 (Mar. 8, 1996) · filed 1996-03-08(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, CT Page 1525 probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) bars a court from reweighing evidence and requires it to affirm an agency decision unless the appellant's substantial rights were prejudiced by findings that are clearly erroneous on the whole record.

Nadeau v. Commissioner of Public Health, No. Cv 95 055 30 46 (Mar. 15, 1996) · filed 1996-03-15(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." ... These general principles of administrative law, as applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, require the court to affirm the commissioner's conclusions concerning the evidence offered by the plaintiffs of Child C's improved condition.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency factfinding to whether the whole record supports the agency's conclusion; the court does not reweigh the evidence.

Sorrentino v. Hadley, No. Cv95-0050571s (Apr. 3, 1996) · filed 1996-04-03(j)

It is not for this court to draw any conclusions from the evidence presented but only to determine if the whole record supports the conclusion of the hearing officer in answering the question of whether the appellant refused the test.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency decisions; a court may not replace an agency’s supported decision with its own analysis of an issue the agency did not address.

City of Hartford v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1996-04-16(j)

Although the trial court might well have reached a conclusion different from that reached by the commission, the limited scope of review set forth in § 4-183 (j), and expressed by our appellate courts, does not allow that result. Here, the trial court improperly traveled a different path rather than determining whether the commission properly trod on the stepping stones of the path it took.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency fact findings: the court may not reweigh the evidence and must affirm unless the decision prejudices substantial rights under the statutory standard.

Saba v. Commission on Hum. Rights Opp., No. Cv 95 054 66 15 (Dec. 4, 1995) · filed 1995-12-04(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." ... Based on this review, the court cannot say that the commission acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or in abuse of its discretion.

Section 4-183(g) requires courts reviewing administrative fact finding to apply the substantial evidence standard.

Gospic v. Hadley, No. Cv94 0048507s (Dec. 7, 1995) · filed 1995-12-07(g)

The `substantial evidence' rule governs judicial review of administrative fact finding under General Statutes (rev. to 1987) sec. 4-183 (g).

Section 4-183(j) requires courts to give considerable weight to an agency’s factual and discretionary determinations and to defer to its interpretation of a statute it enforces.

Conn. D. of Adm. Ser. v. Emp. Rev. Bd., No. Hhd Cv94-0538658 (Dec. 12, 1995) · filed 1995-12-12(j)

The standard of review is that articulated in General Statutes § 4-183 (j). A court reviewing the factual and discretionary determinations of an administrative agency must accord such findings considerable weight. Connecticut Hospital Ass'n. Inc. v. Commission on Hospitals and Health Care, 200 Conn. 133 , 140 (1986). As to legal determinations, deference is to be accorded to the construction of a statute by the agency charged with its enforcement. Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158 , 165 (1994).

Section 4-183(j) requires a reviewing court to assess whether the record as a whole supports the agency's action without substituting its judgment for the agency's.

Hall v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, No. Cv 95 0069035 (Feb. 8, 1996) · filed 1996-02-08(j)

A court in reviewing decisions of administrative agencies does not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183 (j). The court need merely determine whether or not the record as a whole supports the action taken by the agency.

Section 4-183(i) limits judicial review of agency decisions and requires the court to uphold a decision supported by the administrative record.

Frank's Supermarket v. Michaud, No. Cv95-0549356s (Apr. 22, 1996) · filed 1996-04-22(i)

The Uniform Administrative Procedures Act ("UAPA") states the standard of review in General Statutes § 4-183 (i). ... The decision of the agency must be upheld if the record discloses evidence that supports any one of the reasons the agency gave for its decision.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) governs substantial evidence review of administrative fact finding; a finding must have a reasonable factual basis in the record.

Dolgner v. Alander · filed 1996-06-04(j)(5) and (6)

The “substantial evidence” rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6). ... “An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.”

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to affirm agency factual findings supported by substantial evidence despite contrary evidence in the record.

Yaworski, Inc. v. Dpt. of Envr. Prot., No. Cv 950550682 (Jun. 21, 1996) · filed 1996-06-21(j)

In view of that evidence, the court must affirm the agency's findings of fact notwithstanding other evidence in the record to the contrary. General Statutes § 4-183 (j); Connecticut Building Wrecking Co. v. Carothers, 218 Conn. 580 , 601 (1991).

Section 4-183(j) requires courts to defer to agency factfinding supported by substantial evidence rather than reweigh the evidence.

Buhrendorf v. Comm. of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 96 056 01 09 (Oct. 22, 1996) · filed 1996-10-22(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." ... In accordance with the rule of substantial evidence summarized above, the court must affirm that finding.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency fact findings: the court may not reweigh evidence and must uphold a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Lavoie v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 95 046 85 02 (May 2, 1996) · filed 1996-05-02(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, infernces, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) prevents a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency's on questions of fact.

Hackett v. Chro, No. Cv 94-0122312 (Jun. 6, 1996) · filed 1996-06-06(j)

The trial court may not substitute its judgment for that of the commission with respect to questions of fact. Dufraine, 236 Conn. 264 n. 11; General Statutes § 4-183 (j); Levinson v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 211 Conn. 508 , 536 (1989).

Section 4-183 limits judicial review of agency factual findings to substantial evidence; the court may not retry the case or reweigh the evidence.

The Waterbury Yl. Cab Ser. Co. v. Frankel, No. Cv94-705418 (Jul. 16, 1996) · filed 1996-07-16

With regard to claims concerning the rulings of the DOT as to the substance of the allegations of violations, the scope of review is limited by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, specifically, General Statutes § 4-183 . ... This court may not retry the case or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the weight of the evidence or questions of fact.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency fact findings and permits relief when a clearly erroneous decision prejudices an appellant's substantial rights.

State Un. S. Dist. 1 v. Dept. of Ed., No. Cv 95 070 57 83 (Aug. 12, 1996) · filed 1996-08-12(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced CT Page 5252-YYYY because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency fact findings: a court may not reweigh the evidence and may set aside findings that prejudice substantial rights because they are clearly erroneous on the whole record.

State of Connecticut-Unified School District 1 v. State Department of Education · filed 1996-08-12(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court’s review of an agency’s decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides in pertinent part that “[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are ... (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record . . . .”

Section 4-183(i) confines judicial review to the administrative hearing record, including when the court decides an attorney’s fee award.

McDonald v. Rowe · filed 1996-09-10(i)

The trial court is confined to the record of the administrative hearing. General Statutes § 4-183 (i). Accordingly, the trial court should not have added facts to that record when making a determination on the award of attorney’s fees.

Section 4-183 permits affirmance where findings relevant to the appeal are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and other findings are surplusage.

State Board of Labor Relations v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1996-09-17(i) through (j)

Specifically, the FOIC asserts that the trial court made “extra-record findings of fact”... in violation of the standard of review set forth in General Statutes § 4-183 (i) through (j). ... Thus, any findings by the court directed at the regulations of the mediation board is mere surplusage. Moreover, because the record before this court reveals that the trial court’s findings of fact are ... based on substantial evidence found in the administrative record, we conclude that the trial court properly applied the appropriate standard of judicial review.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency factfinding: a court may not reweigh the evidence and must affirm unless the decision prejudices substantial rights and is clearly erroneous on the whole record.

Tanis v. Commission on Human Rights, No. Cv 930134702 (Sep. 23, 1996) · filed 1996-09-23(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." ... Applying the familiar principles of administrative law summarized above, the court concludes that it may not disturb those findings and conclusion.

Section 4-183(j) bars a court from reweighing evidence and requires it to affirm an agency decision unless the appellant's substantial rights were prejudiced by findings clearly erroneous on the whole record.

Tanis v. Comm. on Human Rts. and Opps., No. Cv 93 013 47 02 (Sep. 24, 1996) · filed 1996-09-24(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." ... Applying the familiar principles of administrative law summarized above, the court concludes that it may not disturb those findings and conclusion.

Section 4-183(j) limits review of agency factfinding and requires affirmance unless the appellant's substantial rights were prejudiced by a clearly erroneous decision.

Eastern Connecticut State Un. v. F.O.I.C., No. Cv 960556097 (Sep. 30, 1996) · filed 1996-09-30(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing evidence and requires it to affirm an agency decision unless the specified errors prejudice the appellant's substantial rights.

Hall v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 95 055 65 60 (Oct. 1, 1996) · filed 1996-10-01(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency fact findings and requires affirmance unless the agency’s decision prejudices substantial rights and is clearly erroneous in view of the evidence.

Turner v. Commission on Human Rights, No. Cv96 0383393 (Oct. 7, 1996) · filed 1996-10-07(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing evidence and requires it to affirm an agency decision unless the decision prejudices substantial rights because it is clearly erroneous on the whole record.

Colucci v. Insurance Department, No. Cv 95 055 21 97 (Oct. 7, 1996) · filed 1996-10-07(j)

This the court may not do. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) bars a court from reweighing evidence and requires it to affirm an agency decision unless the decision prejudices substantial rights and is clearly erroneous in light of the whole record.

Alberts v. Commission on Human Rights, No. Cv95 0553611 (Oct. 22, 1996) · filed 1996-10-22(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) authorizes remand when an agency violates the law, exceeds its authority, uses unlawful procedure, or acts in a clearly erroneous way in light of the whole record.

City of Hartford v. Freedom of Info. Comm., No. Cv95 0550485 (May 6, 1996) · filed 1996-05-06(j)

While General Statutes § 4-183 (j) authorizes remand where an agency has acted in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, in excess of the agency's statutory authority, upon unlawful procedure, or in a clearly erroneous way in view of the reliable evidence as a whole, an administrative's agency's construction of a statute it is charged with enforcing is entitled to deference unless the construction violates rules of statutory construction, or has not been consistently applied by the agency over a period of time.

Section 4-183(j) requires a reviewing court to assess the evidence when deciding whether an agency acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion.

Ashe v. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health, No. Cv95-0552582 (May 16, 1996) · filed 1996-05-16(j)

The reviewing court must decide, in view of all of the evidence, whether the agency, in issuing its order, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or illegally, or abused its discretion. General Statutes § 4-183 (j); Connecticut Alcohol Drug Abuse Commission v. Freedom of Information Commission, 233 Conn. 28 , 39 (1995); Ottochian v. Freedom of Information, 221 Conn. 393 , 397 (1992).

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to affirm an agency decision unless its findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous in view of the evidence on the whole record.

Hackett v. Commission on Human Rt. Opp., No. Cv 940122312 (Jul. 19, 1996) · filed 1996-07-19(j)

Moreover, the courts are required to affirm the agency's decision unless the agency's findings and conclusions are "clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record." General Statutes § 4-183 (j). This court finds no basis in the record for concluding that the CHRO's findings are clearly erroneous.

Section 4-183(j) requires a reviewing court to defer to an agency’s weighing of evidence and affirm its factual findings when substantial evidence supports them.

Cosme v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 95 055 44 69 (Sep. 30, 1996) · filed 1996-09-30(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." ... The court must, therefore, affirm that finding.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to set aside an agency decision when its factual finding lacks substantial evidence in the record.

Cusano v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 960558781 (Oct. 29, 1996) · filed 1996-10-29(j)

The obvious corollary to the rule is that the court may not affirm the agency's decision if the evidence in the record does not support it. ... In view of the particular facts of this case, which are undisputed and fully reflected in the record, the court finds that the hearing officer's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, that decision may not be affirmed.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to set aside an agency decision when its critical factual findings lack substantial evidence in the record.

Car Tune Systems v. Comm. of Motor Veh., No. Cv 96 055 87 40 (Oct. 29, 1996) · filed 1996-10-29(j)

Nevertheless, the obvious corollary to the rule is that the court may not affirm the agency's decision if the evidence in the record does not support it. In the present case, the court concludes that the evidence in the record does not support the hearing officer's most critical factual findings, thereby fatally undermining his conclusions of law as well.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to reject agency factual findings that lack substantial evidence in the record.

Luca v. Examining Board for Barbers, No. Cv 95 055 47 18 (Nov. 25, 1996) · filed 1996-11-25(j)

Nevertheless, if the record does not contain sufficient substantial evidence to support those findings, the court must reject them.

Section 4-183(j) requires a reviewing court to affirm an agency decision unless a listed defect, including a finding clearly erroneous in light of substantial evidence, prejudices the appellant’s substantial rights.

Kolakowski v. Hadley · filed 1996-12-03(j)

A reviewing court “shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions ... (5) clearly erroneous in view of the rehable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. ...” General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Under § 4-183, a reviewing court defers to the agency's credibility findings and may not second-guess its factfinding.

St. John-Cullen v. Comm'r of Motor Veh., No. Cv96 056 20 64 (Dec. 23, 1996) · filed 1996-12-23

In accordance with the familiar principles of administrative law summarized above, the hearing officer was entitled to rely on that testimony and to disbelieve the plaintiff's testimony. The court may not second guess that factfinding process.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency factfinding: a court may not reweigh evidence and must affirm findings supported by substantial evidence.

Fuentes v. Medical Examining Board, No. Cv 95 055 27 80 (Dec. 27, 1996) · filed 1996-12-27(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that CT Page 7082 substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." ... The court concludes, on the basis of the record, especially the findings and orders of the Pennsylvania board, that the findings and conclusions of the Connecticut board are amply supported by evidence and may not be overruled by this court.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court reviewing agency factfinding to defer to the agency’s weighing of evidence and uphold findings supported by substantial evidence.

Lenczyk v. State Dental Commission, No. Cv95 070 57 92 (Dec. 31, 1996) · filed 1996-12-31(j)

With respect to the plaintiff's arguments on the facts, the role of the court is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the CT Page 7133 person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183 applies the substantial evidence standard to judicial review of administrative fact findings.

Bezzini v. State, No. Cv 960472725 (Jan. 7, 1997) · filed 1997-01-07

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact finding under General Statutes § 4-183 . . . An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence' if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred . . Such a standard of review allows less room for judicial scrutiny than does the `weight of the evidence' rule or the `clearly erroneous' rule . . . In determining whether an administrative finding is supported by `substantive evidence,' a court must defer to the agency's right to believe or disbelieve the evidence presented by any witness, even an expert, in whole or in part.

Section 4-183(j) requires a reviewing court to defer to agency factfinding and affirm when substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings.

Kennedy v. Plumb. Pip. Work Exam. Bd., No. Cv 95 055 66 76 (Feb. 19, 1997) · filed 1997-02-19(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." ... The court concludes that there was substantial evidence to support the board's finding concerning the use of illegal solder.

Section 4-183 requires a court to uphold an administrative finding supported by substantial evidence, even when the record contains contrary evidence.

Lombard v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 94 036 53 69 (Feb. 19, 1997) · filed 1997-02-19

In the present case, the police officer's report that the plaintiff only simulated blowing into the machine constituted CT Page 1451 substantial evidence that she effectively refused to submit to the test. The court must affirm the hearing officer's finding in that regard, therefore, even though there was contrary evidence offered by the plaintiff.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing an agency's factual evidence and requires affirmance unless the agency's decision prejudices substantial rights under the statutory standard.

Halpern v. Bristol Board of Education, No. Cv95 0551453 (Oct. 28, 1996) · filed 1996-10-28(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that ... substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency fact-finding: the court may not reweigh evidence and must affirm unless the decision prejudices substantial rights and is clearly erroneous on the whole record.

Youngquist v. Freedom of Inform. Comm'n, No. Cv 950554601 (Oct. 29, 1996) · filed 1996-10-29(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency factfinding and requires prejudice to substantial rights before an agency decision may be reversed.

Cablevision v. Dep't of Pub. Util., No. Cv96 0557669 (Nov. 4, 1996) · filed 1996-11-04(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing the evidence and requires affirmance unless the agency’s decision prejudices substantial rights on a specified ground for reversal.

Matthews v. Dept. of Consumer Protection, No. Cv95-0555647 S (Nov. 12, 1996) · filed 1996-11-12(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing evidence and requires it to affirm an agency decision unless the appellant's substantial rights were prejudiced by error.

Montville Town Planner v. Foic, No. Cv95 0108636 (Nov. 19, 1996) · filed 1996-11-19(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that ... substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing evidence and requires it to affirm an agency decision unless the appellant's substantial rights were prejudiced by findings clearly erroneous on the whole record.

Jerry's Auto Center v. Connecticut Dmv, No. Cv96 0558845 (Nov. 22, 1996) · filed 1996-11-22(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced CT Page 9956 because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency fact findings: the court may not reweigh the evidence and must affirm unless clearly erroneous findings prejudice the appellant's substantial rights.

Barr v. Dept. of Administrative Services, No. Cv95 0466845 S (Dec. 10, 1996) · filed 1996-12-10(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency factfinding: the court may not reweigh evidence that the hearing officer considered.

Ellam v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv96 055 79 52 (Dec. 19, 1996) · filed 1996-12-19(j)

As the authorities quoted above indicate, the scope of this court's review of the hearing officer's factfinding in this case is very limited. It was the hearing officer's task, not the court's, to balance the police officers' report against the testimony of the plaintiff and determine which deserved the greater weight.

Section 4-183 provides a judicial appeal after agency remedies are exhausted and allows review of constitutional claims arising from agency proceedings.

Flanagan v. State, C.H.R.O., No. Cv96 0563942s (Jan. 30, 1997) · filed 1997-01-30

Clearly, in the case before us the plaintiff will have the statutory right of appeal. General Statutes § 4-183 . ... In summary, the court finds that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and that there is adequate opportunity for judicial review of his statutory and constitutional claims if he is unsatisfied with the administrative proceedings.

Subsection (j) limits judicial review of agency fact findings: the court may not reweigh the evidence and must affirm unless the appellant’s substantial rights were prejudiced by an error such as a finding clearly erroneous on the whole record.

Department of Children Families v. Foic, No. Cv 960562546s (Feb. 27, 1997) · filed 1997-02-27(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, CT Page 694-FF probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) bars a court from reweighing evidence and requires affirmance unless an agency error prejudiced the appellant's substantial rights.

Dep't of Children Families v. Foic., No. Cv96 0562546 S (Feb. 27, 1997) · filed 1997-02-27(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183 requires courts reviewing administrative factfinding to apply the substantial evidence standard and defer to the agency’s assessment of witnesses.

Dumont v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 96 056 09 49 (Dec. 13, 1996) · filed 1996-12-13

"The `substantial evidence' rule governs judicial review of administrative factfinding under General Statutes § 4-183 . . . An administrative finding is supported by `substantial evidence' if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) applies the substantial evidence rule to judicial review of administrative fact-finding.

Kimberly v. Connecticut D.C.F., No. Hhd Cv96-0561934 S (Feb. 28, 1997) · filed 1997-02-28(j)(5) and (6)

The "substantial evidence" rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6).

Section 4-183 requires a court reviewing administrative factfinding to uphold a decision supported by substantial evidence.

Best v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 94 012 21 78 (Mar. 11, 1997) · filed 1997-03-11

In the present case, there was ample substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's decision, and the court must, accordingly, affirm it.

Section 4-183 requires a court reviewing administrative factfinding to uphold findings supported by substantial evidence.

Bartalini v. Comm. of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 96 013 37 62 (Mar. 11, 1997) · filed 1997-03-11

Under all of these circumstances, the hearing officer's conclusion that Daubert's insertion of "5-26-96" was simply a mistake is entirely reasonable and backed by substantial evidence.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) applies substantial evidence review to agency factual findings and limits a court's ability to overturn them.

American Federation of State v. State, No. Cv96 055 88 73 (Apr. 3, 1997) · filed 1997-04-03(j)(5) and (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). ... Unquestionably, these familiar rules governing and limiting the court's review of an administrative agency's factual findings apply to appeals of the labor board's decisions.

Section 4-183 requires a court reviewing administrative factfinding to uphold a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Colavolpe v. Department of Social Services, No. Cv 960389003 (May 27, 1997) · filed 1997-05-27

"The `substantial evidence' rule governs judicial review of administrative factfinding under General Statutes § 4-183 . . . An administrative finding is supported by `substantial evidence' if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred . . . Such a standard of review allows less room for judicial scrutiny than does the `weight of the evidence' rule or the `clearly erroneous' rule . . . In determining whether an administrative finding is supported by `substantial evidence,' a court must defer to the agency's right to believe or disbelieve the evidence presented by any witness, even an expert, in whole or in part (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Briggs v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 210 Conn. 214 , 217 (1989). "If the administrative record provides substantial evidence upon which the hearing officer could reasonably have based his finding . . . the decision must be upheld." Conn. Building Wrecking Co. v. Carrothers, 218 Conn. 580 , 601 (1991). Based on those familiar principles of administrative law, the court must accept the hearing officer's determination of the amount of AFDC benefits remaining unreimbursed.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court reviewing agency factfinding to defer to findings supported by substantial evidence.

Rodriguez v. Comm. of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 97 057 00 24 (Jun. 27, 1997) · filed 1997-06-27(j)

In the present case, the hearing officer had substantial evidence, the statements in the police report, which would support his findings of fact on the issue of refusal. Accordingly, the court may not overturn those findings notwithstanding the other evidence in the record to the contrary.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) requires courts reviewing agency fact-finding to determine whether substantial evidence supports the findings and whether the agency's conclusions are reasonable.

Sweeney Transp. v. Liberty Mutual Ins., No. Cv96 0565269 S (Jul. 24, 1997) · filed 1997-07-24(j)(5) and (6)

In this case the court must determine if the record contains substantial evidence to support the DOI findings as to Plaintiff's control over the owner-operator truck drivers working at Bradley Field. ... The record contains evidence supporting each finding. The conclusion from such findings that the truck drivers were employees was reasonable and logical.

Section 4-183 requires courts reviewing agency factual findings to apply the substantial evidence standard; a finding is supported when the record provides a substantial basis for inferring the fact.

Albert v. Conn. Comm'r. of Soc. Serv., No. Hhd Cv96-0560313 S (Mar. 6, 1997) · filed 1997-03-06(j)(5) and (6)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court reviewing an agency decision to affirm it unless a specified error has prejudiced the appellant’s substantial rights.

Singh v. Department of Public Health & Addiction Services · filed 1997-05-06(j)

Our standards of review concerning administrative appeals are statutorily mandated: “ ‘[T]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.’ General Statutes § 4-183 (j).”

Section 4-183(j)(5) requires the court to uphold an agency decision supported by substantial evidence unless it is clearly erroneous on the whole record.

Blackwell v. Danbury Hospital, No. 32 46 12 (Apr. 8, 1997) · filed 1997-04-08(j)(5)

In light of the substantial evidence in the record, the Commission's decision to dismiss Blackwell's complaint on the ground that there is "no reasonable possibility that investigating the complaint will result in a finding of reasonable cause" pursuant to § 46a-83 (b) is not clearly erroneous under § 4-183 (j)(5).

Section 4-183(j) bars a court from reweighing evidence and requires it to affirm an agency decision unless the specified errors prejudice the appellant's substantial rights.

Fisher v. State, No. Hhd Cv95-0556773 (Apr. 9, 1997) · filed 1997-04-09(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he CT Page 4329 court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing factual evidence and requires it to affirm an agency decision supported by substantial evidence.

Jarvis v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 96 056 66 30 (Apr. 9, 1997) · filed 1997-04-09(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced CT Page 3824 because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(g) limits judicial review of an agency decision to whether the decision is illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion.

Fullerton v. Dept. of Revenue Services, No. Cv95-0551716s (Apr. 10, 1997) · filed 1997-04-10(g)

Thus, this court sits as an appellate tribunal to determine only if, as a matter of law, the Board's decision is illegal, arbitrary or in abuse of its discretion.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court reviewing an agency's factual findings to uphold the decision when substantial evidence supports it, without reweighing the evidence.

Bombaci v. Commissioner of Mtr. Veh., No. Cv 97 056 70 47 (Apr. 30, 1997) · filed 1997-04-30(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." ... And, given the supporting evidence, the hearing officer was entitled to credit that conclusion and reject the plaintiff's testimony to the contrary. The court may not, therefore, second-guess the resulting decision.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing evidence when reviewing an agency decision.

AFSCME, Council 4, Locals 387, 391 & 1565 v. Department of Correction · filed 1997-05-01(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court’s review of an agency’s decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides in pertinent part that “[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

Section 4-183(j) limits review of agency fact finding and requires the court to affirm unless the agency’s decision prejudiced the appellant’s substantial rights.

American Federation of State v. Doc, No. Cv96 0561601 (May 1, 1997) · filed 1997-05-01(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency decisions: courts may not reweigh factual evidence and must affirm unless an agency error prejudices substantial rights.

Kagan v. Harriman, Commissioner, No. Hhd Cv96-0561903-S (May 5, 1997) · filed 1997-05-05(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency decisions and requires the appellant to show that an error prejudiced substantial rights.

Gilman Brothers Co. v. Chro., No. Knl Cv95-0536075 (May 13, 1997) · filed 1997-05-13(j)

After consideration of the remainder of the plaintiff's claims, the court finds that they do not meet the standards for review of administrative agency decisions required by General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j) limits a court’s review of agency factfinding and requires affirmance unless the agency’s decision prejudices substantial rights because it is clearly erroneous in light of the whole record.

B D Associates v. Board of Examiners, No. Cv 96 053 82 69 (Jul. 21, 1997) · filed 1997-07-21(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency factfinding and requires affirmance unless the agency's decision prejudices substantial rights under the statutory standard.

Armstrong v. Freedom of Info. Commission, No. Cv96 0563608 (Jul. 23, 1997) · filed 1997-07-23(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) governs substantial evidence review of an agency's factual findings.

Derby Administrators' Association v. Csblr, No. Cv97 0566777 (Oct. 1, 1997) · filed 1997-10-01(j)(5), (j)(6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). ... The extensive record includes substantial evidence supporting the finding of fact. The conclusions follow logically from such findings. The appeal is dismissed.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) requires substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency's factual findings on judicial review.

Baroody v. Commission on Human Rights, Cv 97-72715 (Nov. 10, 1997) · filed 1997-11-10(j)(5) and (6)

This "substantial evidence rule" is embodied in General Statutes Section 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). The substantial evidence standard is satisfied if the record provides a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) applies the substantial evidence rule to judicial review of agency fact-finding: the record must provide a substantial factual basis for the finding.

Rivera v. Liquor Control Commission, No. Cv97 0568655 (Dec. 9, 1997) · filed 1997-12-09(j)(5) and (6)

"The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6). An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. ... The decision of the Commission is amply supported by the evidence in the Record.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) requires courts reviewing agency fact-finding to apply the substantial evidence rule.

Baer v. Board of Examiners in Podiatry, No. Cv96 0562722 (Jan. 6, 1998) · filed 1998-01-06(j)(5) and (6)

The charges related to Ms. Morrison's treatment are measured under the substantial evidence rule. ... General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6). ... There is substantial evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the Board related to the plaintiff's treatment and billing concerning Ms. Morrison.