5 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11007

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) permits a court to vacate an agency decision that is not supported by substantial evidence.

Shaw v. Maine Real Estate Commission · filed 1981-04-15(4)(C)(5)

We vacate the Superior Court judgment because we conclude that the Commission’s decision to deny the license was not supported by substantial evidence. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5).

Section 11007(3) prevents a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Shone v. Maine Employment Security Commission · filed 1982-02-11(3)

On appeal, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the agency on questions of ... fact. See 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) permits a reviewing court to reverse an administrative decision when it is unsupported by substantial evidence or clearly erroneous.

W. S. Libbey Co. v. Maine Employment Security Commission · filed 1982-06-01(4)(C)(5)

Here, however, the factfinding process occurred at the administrative level and the Superior Court acted solely as a reviewing court. As such, it may only reverse the decision of the Commission when it can be viewed as unsupported by substantial evidence, or clearly erroneous.

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) permits reversal of an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Seven Islands Land Co. v. Maine Land Use Regulation Commission · filed 1982-09-17(4)(C)(5)

In applying the "substantial evidence" standard of review to an agency action, the reviewing court must examine the entire record "to determine whether on the basis of all the testimony and exhibits before the agency it could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did."

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) permits a court to overturn an agency’s factual finding when a challenger shows that substantial evidence on the whole record does not support it.

Gulick v. Board of Environmental Protection · filed 1982-12-03(4)(C)(5)

Under the Maine Administrative Procedure Act, a finding of fact by an administrative agency may be overturned only upon a showing by a challenger that it was “unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.” 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5) (1979).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) requires courts reviewing agency factual findings to determine whether substantial evidence on the whole record supports them.

Oliver v. Secretary of State · filed 1985-03-26(4)(C)(5)

In reviewing factual findings of the Secretary of State, we determine whether the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) permits a court to overturn an agency’s factual finding only if it is unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Clarke v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission · filed 1985-04-23(4)(C)(5)

The scope of judicial review of the administrative agency’s factfinding of suitability is strictly limited; such a finding may be overturned only upon a showing by a challenger that it was “unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.” 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5) (1979).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) permits reversal of an agency decision when it is unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Spear v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission · filed 1986-02-13(4)(C)(5)

Contrary to Mrs. Spear’s contention on appeal, the Commission’s decision is supported by “substantial evidence on the whole record.” 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5) (1979).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) requires courts to uphold administrative fact findings supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Hammond Lumber Co. v. Finance Authority of Maine · filed 1987-02-11(4)(C)(5)

Findings of fact made by an administrative agency must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) calls for review of agency factual findings for substantial evidence on the whole record.

Dodd v. Secretary of State · filed 1987-05-28(4)(C)(5)

“In reviewing factual findings of the Secretary of State we determine whether the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record.”

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) requires review of whether the record adequately supports an agency’s findings of fact.

Molasses Pond Lake Ass'n v. Soil & Water Conservation Commission · filed 1987-12-22(4)(C)(5)

Finally, we are persuaded that the record adequately supports the findings of fact made by the Commission.

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) calls for substantial evidence in the record to support an agency’s factual determination.

Jack v. Department of Human Services · filed 1989-04-06(4)(C)(5)

The Department’s factual determination of the amount appropriate in this case was based on substantial evidence in the record before it. See 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5) (1979).

Agency findings of fact may be overturned only if the challenger shows they are unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Davis v. Secretary of State, Division of Motor Vehicles · filed 1990-07-03(4)(C)(5)

Under the Maine Administrative Procedure Act, 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5) (1989), an administrative agency’s findings of fact may be overturned only upon a showing by the party challenging them that they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.”

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) allows an agency’s factual findings to be overturned only if the challenger shows they lack substantial evidence on the whole record.

Aviation Oil Co. v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 1990-12-14(4)(C)(5)

Under the Maine Administrative Procedures Act, findings of fact by an administrative agency may be overturned only upon a showing by the challenger that they are unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5) (1964).

Section 11007 bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an administrative agency’s on questions of fact.

Nattress v. Land Use Regulation Commission · filed 1991-12-10

We will not substitute our judgment for that of an administrative agency on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007.

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) permits reversal of agency fact findings that are unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Knapp v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. · filed 2004-06-25(4)(C)(5)

The Board’s findings of fact may be reversed on appeal if the court determines that they are unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5) (2002).

Section 11007(4)(C) requires a court to vacate an administrative decision when its findings are unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Unemployment Insurance Commission · filed 2005-04-14(4)(C)

We vacate the administrative decision if the findings or conclusions are: (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by bias or error of law; (5) unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C) (2002).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) allows a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when its findings or conclusions lack substantial evidence on the whole record.

Families United of Washington County v. State of Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission · filed 2006-02-23(4)(C)(5)

The Superior Court may reverse or modify an administrative decision only if the findings or conclusions are unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) requires a court reviewing an agency's factual findings to examine the whole record and determine whether the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did.

Green v. Secretary of State · filed 2008-05-23(4)(C)(5)

When the court is asked to reverse a decision of an adrninistrative agency pursuant to section 11007(4)(C)(5), the court examines "the entire record to determine whether, on the basis of all the testimony and exhibits before it, the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did." Aviation Oil Co. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 584 A.2d 611, 614 (Me. 1990) (citations omitted).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) permits reversal of agency factual findings when they lack substantial evidence on the whole record.

Jordan v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2009-05-01(4)(C)(5)

The Commission's findings of fact may be reversed on appeal if the Court finds that they are unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Section 11007(3) requires a reviewing court to defer to an agency’s factual and credibility findings rather than substitute its own judgment.

JMC Corp. v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2002-05-20(3)

“The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact.” 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007 (3). ... The court must defer to the Commission on credibility issues and findings of fact, and the facts, as the Commission found them, support the notion that Tozier did not make an affirmative choice to leave his employment.

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) allows a court to overturn an agency's factual finding when it is unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Bath Iron Works v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2002-06-17(4)(C)(5)

The scope of judicial review of an administrative agency's factfinding is strictly limited; such a finding may be overturned only upon a showing by a challenger that it was “unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record." Clarke v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission et al., 491 A.2d 549, 551 (citing 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5) (1979)).

Section 11007(3) requires courts reviewing agency findings of fact to defer to findings supported by the record, even when other conclusions are possible.

S.D. Warren Co. v. Board of Environmental Protection · filed 2005-02-15(3)

However, because the Board's findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, whether alternative conclusions could be drawn is not determinative. We do not substitute our judgment for that of an agency on questions of fact provided that the record substantially supports those facts.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Najemy v. Bd. of Envtl. Protection · filed 2007-10-12(3)

Because this Court cannot "substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact," 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(3), and because the record does not compel a contrary result, this Court affirms the agency decision.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact or reweighing the evidence.

Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Board of Environmental Protection · filed 2010-03-11(3)

In this review, “[t]he [C]ourt shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact.” 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3) (2009). ... Any Court review that would redecide the weight and significance given the evidence by the administrative agency would lead to ad hoc judicial decision-making, without giving due regard to the agency’s expertise, and would exceed our statutory authority.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency's on questions of fact.

Carrier v. Secretary of State · filed 2010-09-21(3)

In addition, the Court "shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact." 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

On judicial review, a court may not substitute its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Anderson v. Maine Public Employees Retirement System · filed 2009-12-29(8)

In concluding that the evidence compelled the Board to find for Anderson on the permanency issue, the court was substituting its judgment on fact questions for the contrary judgment reached by the Board. This was violative of 5 M.R.S. § 11007(8) (2008): “The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact.”

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) requires a court reviewing an agency decision for substantial evidence to examine the entire record and determine whether the agency could reasonably find the facts as it did.

Eastman v. State of Maine · filed 2011-01-05(4)(C)(5)

When the court is asked to reverse a decision of an administrative agency pursuant to section 1l007(4)(C)(5), the court examines "the entire record to determine whether, on the basis of all the testimony and exhibits before it, the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did."

Section 11007(3) requires courts to uphold agency fact findings supported by competent evidence, even when the record contains contrary evidence.

Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury v. Board of Environmental Protection · filed 2011-03-24(3)

In applying the “substantial evidence” standard, we do not weigh the merits of evidence; we determine whether there is “any competent evidence in the record to support a finding.” Id. ¶ 14, 989 A.2d at 1134; see also 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3) (2010).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) calls for affirming an agency decision supported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Davie v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2011-04-20(4)(C)(5)

The court will affirm the Commission's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record. Id.; 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5) (2009).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when it is unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Inh. of the Town of Milford and City of Old Town v. Maine · filed 2012-02-08(4)(C)(5)

The Court defers to the Board's finding that Mr. Traub's opinion was not credible because the finding is supported by "substantial evidence" on the record. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) permits reversal when an agency decision lacks substantial evidence on the whole record; the reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence.

Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Superintendent of Ins. · filed 2012-02-21(4)(C)(5)

This court's role is not to reevaluate the evidence; the court may only determine if the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) permits a court to reverse an agency decision unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

RSVP Beverage and Redemption Ctr. v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2012-04-02(4)(C)(5)

The court may only reverse or modify an administrative agency's decision if it is based upon "bias or error of law/' is "unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record," is "arbitrary and capricious," or involves an" abuse of discretion" by the agency. 5 M.R.S. §§ 11007(4)(C)(4)-(6) (2011). ... Because the decision of the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission is unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record, the decision of the Commission is REVERSED.

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence or are arbitrary or capricious.

Bailey v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics · filed 2012-09-30(4)(C)

Administrative findings of fact are not “arbitrary and capricious” if they “are supported by substantial evidence in the record, even if the record contains inconsistent evidence or evidence contrary to the result reached.” ... The Court concludes that the Commission’s factual conclusions were based on competent evidence in the record and were not arbitrary or capricious.

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) requires a court reviewing an agency decision for substantial evidence to examine the whole record and determine whether the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did.

Jorgensen v. Secretary of State of Maine · filed 2012-11-07(4)(C)(5)

\Vhen the court is asked to reverse a decision of an administrative agency pursuant to section 11007(4)(C)(5), the court examines "the entire record to determine whether, on the basis of all the testimony and exhibits before it, the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did."

Section 11007(3) requires a court to affirm an agency’s factual findings when any competent evidence in the record supports them.

Martha A. Powers Trust v. Board of Environmental Protection · filed 2011-03-24(3)

We must affirm the findings of fact if there is “any competent evidence in the record” to support them. Id. ¶ 14, 989 A.2d at 1134; see also 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3) (2010).

Section 11007 requires a reviewing court to assess whether competent record evidence supports an agency’s factual findings while respecting the agency factfinder’s credibility determinations.

Dyer v. Superintendent of Ins. · filed 2012-01-18(4)(C)(5)

Rather, the court's role is to review the record for competent evidence, taking into account the fact-finders stated credibility determinations, to determine whether "the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did." Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury, 2011 ME 39, ~ 24, 15 A.sd at 1271 (quotation marks omitted).

Section 11007(2) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency's on questions of fact.

North Atlantic Securities, LLC v. Maine Office of Securities · filed 2012-07-10(2)

In this regard, "the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact." 5 M.R.S. § 11007(2). Thus, based on credibility determinations of Dell'Olio's testimony and other documentary evidence, there is sufficient record evidence to support the factual conclusion that the transaction was a loan.

Section 11007(2) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Mallinckrodt US v. Maine Dep't of Envtl. Protection. · filed 2012-10-31(2)

In other words, "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact." 5 M.R.S. § 11007(2). Instead, the issue is whether the remedy ordered by the Board is supported by substantial evidence on the record.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Dyer v. Superintendent of Insurance · filed 2013-06-25(3)

A reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions ... of fact. See 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3) (2012); Gulick v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 452 A.2d 1202, 1209 (Me. 1982).

Section 11007(3) requires a reviewing court to affirm agency fact findings unless they are clearly erroneous.

Bassett v. The Inh. of the city of Biddeford · filed 2013-07-05(3)

The Court must affirm the agency's finding of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3) (2011); Green v. Comm'r of the Dep't ofMental Health, 2001 :ME 86, ~ 9, 776 A.2d 612.

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) requires a reviewing court to examine the entire record when assessing whether an agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did.

Ferlisi v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2013-07-29(4)(C)(5)

The Court must examine the entire record in order to determine whether the Commission could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did. See 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5); Clarke v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm 'n, 491 A.2d 549, 552 (Me. 1985).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) requires a reviewing court to examine the entire record to decide whether the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did.

Mason v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2014-02-26(4)(C)(5)

The Court must examine the entire record in order to determine whether the Commission could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did. See 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5); Clarke v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 491 A.2d 549, 552 (Me. 1985).

Section 11007(3) prohibits a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

The Lewin Group, Inc. v. Dep't of Health and Human Svs. · filed 2014-03-13(3)

"The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact." 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) prevents a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on factual questions merely because the evidence could support another result.

Kennebec County v. Maine Pub. Employees Retirement Sys. · filed 2013-04-08(3)

A court is not entitled to substitute its judgment for that of the agency, "merely because the evidence could give rise to more than one result." Dodd v. Sec. cif State, 526 A.2d 58S, 584 (Me. 1987); accord 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Fox Islands Wind Neighbors v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2015-05-07(4)(C)(5)

However, the possibility of noise violations under meteorological conditions other than those present during the July violations does not negate the substantial record evidence supporting the CCO. See 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C)(5) (2014) (providing that the court may reverse an administrative decision if it is “[u]nsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record”).

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to overturn an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence in the record.

MacDonald v. Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles · filed 2015-11-10(4)(C)

On an appeal under Rule 80C from a decision by a Bureau of Motor Vehicles hearing examiner, the court reviews the decision of the hearing examiner for abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Conflicting evidence does not require reversal when substantial evidence supports the agency's findings.

Rossignol v. Maine Public Employees Retirement System · filed 2015-12-01(4)(C)(5)

Although this evidence contradicts other evidence in the Record, it is not enough to render an agency decision unsupported. The Hearing Officer considered all the evidence, even the evidence that favored Rossingol. Although the evidence made this a close case, the Board had enough evidence in the record to support its findings and conclusions.

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when its findings are unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Backer v. State of Maine Dep't of Marine Resources · filed 2016-09-27(4)(C)(5)

With respect to Petitioner's contention that the Department's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, the Court may reverse or modify the Secretary's decision "if the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are ... [u]nsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record .... 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C)(5) (2015). ... Th Lmdersigned finds that the Department's decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 11007(4) requires a court to affirm an agency's factual findings when competent evidence supports them, even if the record contains contrary evidence.

Farwell v. Secretary of State · filed 2019-06-10(4)

Farwell' s burden is to show that no competent evidence exists to support the agency's decision, not that there is substantial evidence in the record that supports his position. See Seider, at~ 9. The court will affirm the findings of fact if there is any competent evidence in the record to support them, even if the record contains other inconsistent or contrary evidence.

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) requires a reviewing court to examine the entire record when deciding whether an agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did.

Barry v. Unemployment Insurance Commission · filed 2016-10-13(4)(C)(5)

The Court must examine the entire record in order to determine whether the Commission could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did. See 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5); Clarke v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 491 A.2d 549, 552 (Me. 1985).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Moore v. Maine Department of Corrections · filed 2016-10-31(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency's on questions of fact.

Grant v. Maine Department of Corrections · filed 2016-10-31(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Mutty v. Maine Department of Corrections · filed 2016-11-03(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) requires courts reviewing agency fact-finding to defer to the agency’s weighing of evidence.

Jalbert v. Maine Public Employees Retirement System · filed 2017-04-11(3)

“As the fact-finder, the Board has the authority to determine the weight to be given to the evidence, and we will not substitute our judgment for the Board’s.” Id. (citing 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3)).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency's on questions of fact.

Sylvia v. Maine Department of Corrections · filed 2017-12-20(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Upton v. Maine Department of Corrections · filed 2018-01-08(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3). Determinations of the believability or credibility of the witnesses and evidence, supported by substantial evidence in the record, should not be disturbed by this court.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Locke v. Secretary of State · filed 2018-01-08(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3). ... The court has no basis, or authority, to substitute its judgment for that of the Hearing Officer who heard the witnesses live and in-person, and who was in the best position to evaluate their believability.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency's on questions of fact.

Boyer v. Department of the Secretary of State · filed 2018-04-26(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency’s on questions of fact.

Quinones v. Maine Department of Corrections · filed 2018-09-30(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) prevents a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Gracia v. Maine Department of Corrections · filed 2018-09-30(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Teer v. State of Board of Veterinary Medicine · filed 2020-01-21(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) leaves the weight of evidence and credibility determinations to the agency on judicial review.

Bennett v. Land Use Planning Commission · filed 2017-08-08(3)

An agency has the authority to determine the weight to be given to the evidence, and to make its own credibility determinations.

Section 11007(3) leaves the weight of the evidence to the agency when a court reviews its decision.

Call v. Maine Department of Corrections · filed 2019-10-24(3)

An agency has the authority to determine the weight to be given to the evidence. Id.; see also 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Quaqua v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission · filed 2018-01-05(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Chapman v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission · filed 2018-04-19(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that ofthe agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) allows review of whether an agency decision is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Monsen v. State of Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles · filed 2024-01-05(4)(C)(5)

This argument amounts to an attack on the evidence. 5 M.R.S, § 11007(4)(C)(5). ... Monsen does not carry her burden of proof to show that no competent evidence supported the Bureau’s decision.

Subsections (3) and (4) govern review of an agency decision without special deference to the Superior Court’s review.

MacAro v. Town of Windham · filed 1983-12-08(3) and (4)

Our review of the Board’s decision is controlled by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(3) and (4) and we do not accord any special deférence to the review conducted in the Superior Court.

Section 11007(4)(C)(6) provides for review of whether an agency decision is arbitrary, capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.

Lundrigan v. Maine Labor Relations Board · filed 1984-10-10(4)(C)(6)

Our review of the entire record indicates that the decision of the MLRB in dismissing Lundrigan’s charge for failure to constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation on the part of the MSEA was not “[arbitrary, capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.” 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(6) (1979).

Section 11007(4)(C) provides for review of agency decisions for abuse of discretion, legal error, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the whole record.

Abrahamson v. Secretary of State · filed 1991-01-08(4)(C)

Because the Superior Court acted as an intermediate appellate tribunal, we review directly the record of the administrative hearing, Mancini v. Secretary of State, 540 A.2d 117, 118 (Me.1988), and in doing so, determine whether the hearing examiner abused her discretion, committed an error of law, or made findings not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record. Robinson v. Board of Trustees of Maine State Retirement Sys., 523 A.2d 1376, 1378 (Me.1987); 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C).

Section 11007(4)(C) limits judicial review of an agency decision to abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Young v. Board of Trustees of Maine State Retirement System · filed 1992-01-02(4)(C)

Our review is limited to whether the Board abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or made findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at 1378; 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C) (1989).

Section 11007(4)(C)(6) permits review of an agency ruling for arbitrary or capricious action or abuse of discretion, with the challenger bearing the burden of proof.

Help-U-Sell, Inc. v. Maine Real Estate Commission · filed 1992-08-07(4)(C)(6)

Given the potential to mislead the public when a real estate broker uses the phrase “for sale by owner,” the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden that the agency’s advisory ruling was arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(6).

Section 11007 requires a reviewing court to uphold an agency’s factual findings when substantial evidence supports them, without substituting its own judgment.

Gulf Island Pond Oxygenation Project Partnership v. Board of Environmental Protection · filed 1994-07-22(3), (4)

This court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Board, and we must affirm findings of fact by the Board if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 11007 calls for direct review of an agency decision for abuse of discretion, legal error, or findings unsupported by the evidence when an intermediate court has reviewed it.

Mitchell v. Maine Harness Racing Commission · filed 1995-07-31

When, as here, there is an appeal from an intermediate appellate review of an administrative decision, we review the agency decision directly for an abuse of discretion, error of law, or finding not supported by the evidence. International Paper Co. v. Board of Envtl. Protection, 629 A.2d 597, 599 (Me.1993); see 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007.

Section 11007(4)(C) provides for review of an agency decision for abuse of discretion, errors of law, or findings unsupported by the evidence.

Centamore v. Department of Human Services · filed 1995-09-13(4)(C)

On appeal from an intermediate appellate review of an administrative decision, we review the agency decision directly for abuse of discretion, errors of law, or findings not supported by the evidence.

Section 11007 sets the scope of judicial review of agency decisions, including review for abuse of discretion, error of law, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

IBM Credit Corp. v. City of Bath · filed 1995-09-21

When, as here, the Superior Court acts in its appellate capacity, we review directly the decision of the Board for abuse of its discretion, error of law or findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. Town of Vienna v. Kokernak, 612 A.2d 870, 872 (Me.1992); see also 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007 (1989) (setting forth the manner and scope of judicial review).

When an agency finds that a party failed to meet its burden of proof, section 11007(4)(C)(6) permits reversal as arbitrary or capricious only if the record compels the contrary conclusion.

Douglas v. Board of Trustees · filed 1996-01-02(4)(C)(6)

When an agency concludes that the party with the burden of proof failed to meet that burden, we will reverse that determination only if the record compels a contrary conclusion to the exclusion of any other inference, ... and hence, in the language of the Maine Administrative Procedures Act, the Board’s failure to be persuaded was “arbitrary or capricious.”

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision on specified grounds, including unlawful procedure, legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and abuse of discretion.

Hale-Rice v. Maine State Retirement System · filed 1997-04-04(4)(C)

[¶ 8] We review administrative decisions directly, Maine Bankers Ass’n v. Bureau of Banking, 684 A.2d 1304, 1305-1306 (Me.1996), and will reverse or modify the decision only if the administrative findings, inferences, or conclusions 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 bias or error of law; (5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.” 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C) (1989); see Maine Bankers Ass’n, 684 A.2d at 1305-1306 (Law Court reviews administrative decision for abuse of discretion, errors of law, or findings not supported by the evidence).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) and (6) allows review of agency action for lack of substantial evidence or for arbitrary or capricious action or abuse of discretion.

Commercial Union Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Board · filed 1997-12-05(4)(C)(5) & (6)

Commercial Union next contends that the Board’s findings of intentional misrepresentation and a willful violation of the Act are “[u]nsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record” and are “[arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.” 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 11007(4)(C)(5) & (6) (1989). We disagree. ... The Board’s finding of a willful violation of the Act is supported by evidence that Commercial Union used an unauthorized, altered medical release form to obtain medical information while intentionally misrepresenting the scope of that release to Thiel and Mayo Hospital. ... We therefore conclude that the Board acted within its discretion in ordering the penalty.

Section 11007(4)(C) provides for review of an agency decision for abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by the evidence.

Fryeburg Health Care Center v. Department of Human Services · filed 1999-07-30(4)(C)

On an appeal from an intermediate appellate review of an administrative decision, we directly review an agency’s decision for an abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings not supported by the evidence. See 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C) (1989); Hale-Rice v. State Retirement System, 1997 ME 64, ¶ 8, 691 A.2d 1232, 1235 (1997).

Section 11007 permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision for specified defects, with the petitioner bearing the burden of showing sufficient grounds.

Tardiff v. Maine State Dep't of Human Servs. · filed 2000-01-12

This court’s manner and scope of review is determined by 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007. The court may reverse or modify the decision if the agency’s final decision is in violation of constitutional statutory provisions, in excess of the statutory authority of the agency, made upon unlawful process, affected by bias or error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record, or arbitrary or capricious and characterized by abuse of discretion. The burden rests on the petitioner to satisfy the court of sufficient basis to reverse or modify the decision.

Section 11007(3) prevents a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency’s on questions of fact.

New England Assoc. of the Amateur Athletic Union, Inc. v. State of Maine, Dep't of Public Safety · filed 2000-08-23(3)

The court would further note that it should not substitute its judgment for that of the agency in questions of fact. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(3) (1983).

Section 11007(4) permits a court to affirm or remand an agency decision and to reverse or modify it for specified defects, including lack of substantial evidence on the whole record.

Consumers For Affordable Health Care v. Iuppa · filed 2001-12-21(4)

Title 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007 provides that this court may affirm the decision of the Superintendent, remand the case for further proceedings as described by the court, and reverse or modify the decision if the court finds one of six possible deficiencies. ... The question is whether there was substantial evidence to support the Superintendent's findings. Notwithstanding some evidence to the contrary, the court is satisfied that the Superintendent examined all of the evidence required by statute and all the evidence that comported with his interpretation of the statute and that required him to find in order to allow him to make a determination as to whether the conversion plan was fair and equitable.

Section 11007 limits when a court may reverse or modify an agency decision, including for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious action, or abuse of discretion.

Washburn & Doughty v. Pottle · filed 2007-11-06(4)(C)(4)-(6)

The Court may only reverse or modify an administrative agency's decision if it is based upon "bias or error of law," is "unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record," is "arbitrary and capricious/' or involves an "abuse of discretion" by the agency. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(4)-(6). ... Though Mr. Pottle admittedly received a six and a half month windfall, the Petitioners failed to meet their burden to show that the hearing officer's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, arbitrary or capricious or that she incorrectly applied the law.

Section 11007(4)(C)(4)-(6) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision for legal error, insufficient evidence, arbitrary or capricious action, or abuse of discretion.

Johnson v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2008-02-26(4)(C)(4)-(6)

The court may only reverse or modify an administrative agency's decision if it is based upon "bias or error of law," is "unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record," is "arbitrary and capricious," or involves an "abuse of discretion" by the agency. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C)(4)-(6) (2006). ... Therefore, the evidence before the Commission was more than adequate to support its finding that Johnson was not entitled to unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct.

Section 11007(2)-(4) allows a court to affirm or remand an agency decision and to reverse or modify it for legal error, unlawful procedure, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Danisinka-Washburn v. State Tax Assessor · filed 2001-08-16(2-4)

The manner and scope of review as provided by MR. Civ. P. 80C(c) shall be in accordance with 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(2-4). Under that authority, the court may affirm the decision of the agency, remand the case for further proceedings, or reverse or modify the decision. In order to reverse or so modify, the court must find that the agency decision was in violation of the law or Constitution, in excess of the authority of the agency, made upon unlawful procedure, affected by bias or error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. This court is satisfied that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that the State Tax Assessor has not violated the Constitution, or statute, has not exceeded its authority, has not proceeded by unlawful procedure or affected by bias or error of law, is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record, and that the decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Section 11007(4) directs the court to review whether the Commission’s factual findings have competent evidentiary support and whether it correctly applied the law.

Tyler v. Maine Dep't of Labor · filed 2002-02-25(4)

On an appeal of this nature, the function of judicial review is to determine whether the Commission's factual findings are supported by any competent evidence and whether the Commission correctly applied the law.

Section 11007(4)(C) limits judicial review of an agency decision to specified errors, including legal error and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Smith v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2002-12-13(4)(C)

Here, the court’s review of the Commission’s order is limited to a determination of whether competent evidence supports the Commission’s findings and whether the Commission applied the correct law to its findings.

Section 11007 limits judicial review to the agency record and does not permit review of an issue the petitioner failed to raise at the agency hearing.

Tibbetts v. State of Maine · filed 2003-05-12(2)-(4)

Because he did not, he has waived the right to argue that issue on appeal. Seider v. Bd. Of Psychologists, 2000 ME 206, {1 39, 762 A.2d 551 (holding that issues not raised at the administrative hearing are deemed unpreserved for appellate review); 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(2)-(4); M.R. Civ. P. 80C(c). Also, because this court is limited to the record before the hearing officer below, the dismissal of the petition must be affirmed.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Goff v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2003-09-23(3)

The Court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(3) (2002).

Section 11007(4)(C) permits judicial review of agency decisions on grounds including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and abuse of discretion.

Kwasnik v. State of Maine, Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2004-10-05(4)(C)

In a Rule 80C appeal, the court may review claims that an agency decision was “(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 bias or error of law; (5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.” 5 M.RS.A. § 11007 (4) (C) (2002).

Section 11007(4)(C) limits when a court may reverse or modify agency action and bars the court from substituting its judgment on questions of fact.

McNeil v. Merrill · filed 2005-04-28(4)(C)

The responsibility of this court is to review the agency action without substituting its judgment for that of the Department of Corrections on questions of fact. The authority by statute to reverse or modify the decision must be based upon this court finding that the Department violated constitutional or statutory provisions, that the Department acted in excess of its statutory authority, that the Department engaged in unlawful procedure, that the Department was affected by bias or error of law, that the action by the Department of Corrections was unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record or that the agency action was arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C).

Section 11007 bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on factual questions and calls for substantial evidence review of the agency’s findings.

Save Our Sebasticook v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection · filed 2006-07-31(3)

The scope of review is set forth in 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007, which provides, "The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact." See §I1007 (3). ... It is sufficient if the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and they are.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency's on questions of fact.

Kane v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Health and Human Svs. · filed 2008-02-26(3)

The court cannot "substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact." 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3) (2006).

Section 11007(4)(C) provides for review of agency decisions for abuse of discretion, legal error, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Cote v. Maine Dep't of Human Servs. · filed 2002-02-26(4)(C)

In considering an appeal, the standard of review is whether the hearing officer abused his discretion, committed an error of law or made findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 11007(4)(C) directs courts reviewing agency decisions to consider abuse of discretion, errors of law, and whether findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Pratt v. Arsenault · filed 2002-04-25(4)(C)

In considering an appeal, the standard of review is whether the hearing officer abused his discretion, committed an error of law, or made findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C) (1989); Davric Maine Corp. v. Maine Harness Racing Comm'n, 732 A.2d 289, 293 (Me. 1999).

Section 11007(4)(C) requires a court reviewing an agency decision to consider whether the hearing officer abused her discretion, committed an error of law, or made findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

D'Auteuil v. State of Maine, Sec'y of State · filed 2002-04-25(4)(C)

In considering an appeal, the standard of review is whether the hearing officer abused her discretion, committed an error of law, or made findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C) (1988); Davric Maine Corp. v. Maine Harness Racing Comm'n, 732 A.2d 289, 293 (Me. 1999).

Section 11007(4)(C) sets the usual grounds for reversing or modifying agency action, but its review standard does not apply to a Freedom of Access Act appeal requiring de novo review.

Moore v. Poulin · filed 2004-12-27(4)(C)

Typically, in an 80C appeal of final agency action, a court may reverse or modify an agency’s decision only if the administrative findings, inferences, or conclusions 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 bias or error of law; (5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion." 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C) (2002). The right of appeal provided by section 409 of the FOAA, however, provides for a trial de novo rather than judicial review restricted to the contents of the certified record.

Section 11007(4)(C)(4)-(6) limits when a court may reverse or modify an administrative agency's decision, including for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious action, or abuse of discretion.

Legge v. Secretary of State · filed 2007-09-04(4)(C)(4)-(6)

The Court may only reverse or modify an administrative agency's decision if it is based upon "bias or error of law," is "unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record," is "arbitrary and capricious," or involves an "abuse of discretion" by the agency. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(4)-(6).

Section 11007 permits reversal of a final agency decision on specified grounds, including findings unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Clark v. Secretary of State · filed 2008-01-10

The Court may reverse a final agency decision only if its "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 bias or error of law; (5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Artibtrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion." 5 M.R.S.A. §11007 (2007).

Section 11007(C) directs courts to review agency decisions for abuse of discretion, legal error, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

Steele v. Secretary of State · filed 2009-12-04(C)

Under Rule 80C and 5 M.R.S. § 11007(C), an agency's decision will be reviewed for abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 11007(C) directs courts to review agency decisions for abuse of discretion, legal error, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Family Crisis Svs. Inc. v. Maine Dep't of Health and Human Svs. · filed 2009-12-04(C)

Under Rule 80C and 5 M.R.S. § 11007(C), an agency's decision will be reviewed for abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 11007 limits when a court may reverse or modify an administrative agency's decision, including when the decision lacks substantial evidence.

Mitchell v. Secretary of State · filed 2010-01-26(4)(C)(4)-(6)

The Court may only reverse or modify an administrative agency's decision if it is based upon "bias or error oflaw," is "unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record," is "arbitrary and capricious," or involves an "abuse of discretion" by the agency. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(4)-(6).

Section 11007 limits reversal or modification of an agency ruling to specified grounds, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and abuse of discretion.

Hammer v. Secretary of State · filed 2010-10-28(4)(C)

Agency rulings may only be reversed or modified on M.R. Civ. P. 80C appeal upon a finding that the administrative ruling is: (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 bias or by error of law; (5) unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.

Section 11007(4)(C) directs a court reviewing an agency decision to examine the agency record for legal error, findings unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrariness, or abuse of discretion.

Every v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2011-04-20(4)(C)

When acting as an appellate body pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C, the court directly examines the record before the agency and reviews its decision for errors of law, findings not supported "by substantial evidence on the whole record," or other indications that the decision was "[a]rbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion."2 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C) (2011).

Section 11007(4)(C) limits when the Superior Court may reverse or modify an administrative decision, including for an error of law, abuse of discretion, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Intralot, Inc. v. Schneiter · filed 2011-10-19(4)(C)

Thus, recognizing the two standards of review, to define this Court's task, we defer to the Appeal Panel's invalidation decision unless it "abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or made findings not supported by substantial evidence on the record" in finding by clear and convincing evidence that the Guidelines constituted an irregularity creating a fundamental unfairness or that the Evaluation Committee's lack of documentation was in violation of law.

Section 11007(C) directs courts reviewing agency decisions to consider abuse of discretion, errors of law, and whether factual findings have substantial evidence in the record.

Courtois v. Maine Pub. Employees Retirement Sys. · filed 2012-06-27(C)

Under Rule SOC and 5 M.R.S. § 11007(C), an agency's decision will be reviewed for abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 11007 requires affirmance of an agency decision absent abuse of discretion, bias, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Sullivan v. Maine Dep't of Health and Human Svs. · filed 2012-07-30(4)(C)(5)

Accordingly, absent a finding of abuse of discretion, bias or error of law or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record as required by 5 M.R.S. §11007(C), the agency's actions must be affirmed.

Section 11007(4)(C) directs courts to review agency decisions for legal error, findings unsupported by substantial evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action or abuse of discretion.

Noiles v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, State of Maine · filed 2012-11-20(4)(C)

When acting as an appellate body pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. SOC, the court directly examines the record before the agency and reviews its decision for errors of law, findings not supported "by substantial evidence on the whole record," or other indications that the decision was "[a]rbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion." 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C) (2011); see also 5 M.R.S. § 11006(1) (2011) ("Judicial review shall be confined to the record upon which the agency decision was based ...").

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to set aside an agency decision for legal error, findings unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action or abuse of discretion.

Ibrahim v. Unemployment Ins.Comm'n · filed 2011-06-20(4)(C)

When acting as an appellate body pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. SOC, the court directly examines the record before the agency and reviews its decision for errors of law, findings not supported "by substantial evidence on the whole record," or other indications that the decision was "[a]rbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion." 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C) (2011).

Section 11007 provides judicial review of statutory and constitutional challenges to an agency decision, including claims of legal error and abuse of discretion.

Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc. v. Superintendent of Insurance · filed 2011-08-29(1), (2), (4), (6)

It is clear that all of Anthem's assignments of error are within the scope of 5 M.R.S. § 11007(1), (2), (4), and (6), which provide a remedy at law.

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to reverse or modify an administrative decision only on specified grounds, including legal error, bias, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Bradley v. Head · filed 2011-11-15(4)(C)

Under the statutory iteration, the Superior Court may only reverse or modify an administrative decision if it is: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess ofthe statutory authority of the agency; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by bias or error oflaw; (5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C).

Section 11007(4)(C) allows judicial review of claims of bias and due process violations in an administrative proceeding.

Mallinckrodt US, LLC v. Maine Dep't of Environmental Protection · filed 2013-01-25(4)(C)

Further, Mallinckrodt's claims of bias and due process violations fall squarely within the scope of 5 M.R.S. § 11007(C)(4).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) requires a reviewing court to examine the entire agency record to determine whether the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did.

Testaverde v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2013-05-29(4)(C)(5)

The Court must examine the entire record in order to determine whether the Commission could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did. See 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5); Clarke v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm 'n, 491 A.2d 549, 552 (Me. 1985).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) requires a reviewing court to examine the entire agency record to determine whether the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did.

Albanese v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2013-12-30(4)(C)(5)

The Court must examine the entire record in order to determine whether the Commission could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did. See 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5); Clarke v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 491 A.2d 549, 552 (Me. 1985).

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to reverse agency action that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious.

Thanks But No Tank v. Maine Dep't of Envtl. Protection · filed 2012-11-13(4)(C)(5),(6)

When reviewing administrative orders, the court may reverse the decision if the findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are, among other things, "unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or [a]rbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion." 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C)(5),(6) (2011). ... Since the application complied with the regulations the DEP's decision to issue the permit is not arbitrary and it is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 11007(4)(C) directs courts reviewing agency decisions to examine the record for legal error, findings unsupported by substantial evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action or abuse of discretion.

Marcella v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2013-05-16(4)(C)

When acting as an appellate body pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. SOC, this court directly examines the record before the agency and reviews its decision for errors of law, findings not supported "by substantial evidence on the whole record," or other indications that the decision was "[a]rbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion." 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C) (2011).

Section 11007(4)(C)(6) provides a deferential standard of review for claims that agency subpoenas are overbroad or seek irrelevant information.

National Organization for Marriage v. Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices · filed 2013-05-30(4)(C)(6)

Given our deferential standard of review for this type of contention, see 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C)(6) (2012), we do not address this argument further.

Section 11007(3) requires a reviewing court to affirm an agency's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.

Dubois Livestock, Inc. v. Town of Arundel · filed 2013-09-16(3)

The Court must affirm the agency's finding of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.

Section 11007(4)(C) requires review of an agency decision for abuse of discretion, legal error, and findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

Stein v. Maine Criminal Justice Academy Bd. of Trustees · filed 2013-09-17(4)(C)

Under Rule SOC and 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C), an agency's decision will be reviewed for abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 11007(3) requires a court to affirm an agency's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.

Ahlgren v. Town of Ogunquit · filed 2013-09-19(3)

The Court must affirm the agency's finding of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3) (2011); Green v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Mental Health, 2001 ME 86, ~ 9, 776 A.2d 612.

Section 11007(4)(C) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or abuse of discretion.

Estate of Marshall Santos v. Lambrew · filed 2020-02-26(4)(C)

The court may reverse or modify an administrative decision if the 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 bias or error of law; (5) unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C) (2019).

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) requires a court to examine the entire agency record to decide whether the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did.

Farrell v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n · filed 2015-09-11(4)(C)(5)

The court must examine the entire record in order to determine whether the Commission could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did. See 5 M.R.S.A. §11007(4)(C)(5); Clarke v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 491 A.2d 549 (Me. 1985).

Section 11007 bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency's on factual questions and permits reversal when findings lack substantial evidence.

Trattner v. Maine Public Employees Retirement System · filed 2016-01-07(3)-(4)

The reviewing court may not "substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact" and may only affirm the decision, remand for further proceedings, or reverse or modify on the basis of constitutional or statutory violations, unlawful procedure, bias, errors of law, findings unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious decisions. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3)-(4) (2014).

Section 11007(3) limits a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency’s assessment of the evidence.

Rossignol v. Maine Public Employees Retirement System · filed 2016-07-21(3)

As the fact-finder, the Board has the authority to determine the weight to be given to the evidence, and we will not substitute our judgment for the Board’s. Id. ¶¶ 27-28; 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency’s on questions of fact.

Carryl v. Maine Department of Corrections · filed 2016-10-05(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Greenawald v. Secretary of State · filed 2018-01-16(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007 permits judicial review of agency decisions challenged as unlawful, beyond the agency’s authority, procedurally improper, legally erroneous, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious.

Maine Equal Justice Partners v. Hamilton · filed 2018-11-21

In fact the vehicles by which the Petitioners have brought this action, Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 80C and the Maine Administrative Procedures Act, were created in anticipation of cases such as this one, in which a party seeks to challenge the actions of an administrative body for decisions "(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 bias or error of law; (5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion." 5 M.R.S. § 11007.

Section 11007(4)(C) directs courts reviewing agency decisions to consider errors of law, abuse of discretion, and whether substantial evidence supports the findings.

Town of Searsport v. State of Maine · filed 2017-06-21(4)(C)

When acting in an appellate capacity pursuant to Rule BOC and the APA, the court reviews an agency's decision for errors oflaw, abuse of discretion, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 11007(3) bars a court reviewing final agency action from substituting its judgment for the agency’s on questions of fact.

Russell v. Bureau of Alcoholic Beverages and Lottery Operations · filed 2020-12-16(3)

In reviewing final agency action, the Court "shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact." 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) prevents a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency's on questions of fact.

Drewery v. Maine Dep't of Corrections · filed 2021-04-26(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) prohibits a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Hawes v. Maine Public Employees Retirement System · filed 2021-10-07(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007 limits judicial review of agency permit decisions to abuse of discretion, errors of law, and factual findings unsupported by the record.

Mabee v. Board of Environmental Protection · filed 2021-11-18

This Court is limited in its Rule 80C appeal review to determining whether the BEP abused its discretion, made errors of law, or made factual findings not supported by the record in its approval of the Water Permit, SLODA Permit, NRPA Permit, and AEL. 5 M.R.S. § 11007.

Section 11007(4) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision for specified legal or procedural errors, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Baxter v. State of Maine · filed 2022-10-31(4)

There is substantial ... competent record evidence to support the Commissioner's denial of Mr. Baxter's license ... application.

Section 11007(4)(C) permits review of agency decisions for errors of law, factual findings unsupported by substantial record evidence, and abuse of discretion.

Waldo Community Action Partners v. Department of Administrative and Financial Services · filed 2026-02-10(4)(C)

We review the decision by the DAFS appeal committee “for errors of law, factual findings unsupported by substantial record evidence, or an abuse of discretion.” E. Me. Conservation Initiative v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 2025 ME 35, ¶ 21, 334 A.3d 706; see also 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C).

Section 11007(3) leaves the weight of evidence to the agency as factfinder; a reviewing court does not substitute its judgment for the agency's.

Witham v. Board of Trustees for the Maine Criminal Justice Academy · filed 2021-05-24(3)

That rationale is equally applicable here. See Rossignol, 2016 ME 115, ~ 6, 144 A.3d 1175 (citing 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3)) ("As the fact-finder, the Board has the authority to determine the weight to be given to the evidence, and we will not substitute our judgment for the Board's."). As such, 17-A M.R.S. § 1057(5) does not limit the type of evidence that can be admissible to prove an individual is under the influence, and the weight to give to a nonexpert or layperson's testimony in such a case is within the province of the factfinder, here the hearing officer and then the Board.

Section 11007(3) prohibits a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency's on questions of fact.

Kippax, D.M.D. v. State of Maine Board of Dental Practice · filed 2021-06-09(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) prohibits a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency's on questions of fact.

Mendoza v. Maine Dep't of Corrections · filed 2021-12-06(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact.

Section 11007(3) prevents a reviewing court from substituting its judgment on the facts for the agency's merely because other testimony could support a different finding.

Mack v. Secretary of State, Bureau of Motor Vehicles · filed 2022-02-03(3)

The Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the hearing officer merely because Mr. Mack's testimony, if credited, could support a different finding.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Francis v. Maine Warden Service · filed 2022-11-04(3)

The court may not suhstitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Mugeni v. Maine Dep't of Health and Human Services · filed 2023-04-13(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3). ... The Court will not disturb the finding that Ms. Mugeni knowingly or recklessly caused a threat to Mr. F.'s health or welfare.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Christie v. Bellows · filed 2023-12-21(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

MacKay v. Maine Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2021-07-19(3)

The court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3). ... DEP' s conclusion that the visual and aesthetic character of the area would not be unreasonably impacted was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 11007(4)(C)(5) requires a reviewing court to examine the entire record to determine whether the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did.

Tatlock v. Unemployment Ins. Commission · filed 2022-02-01(4)(C)(5)

The Court must examine the entire record to determine whether the Commission could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did. See 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5); Clarke v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm 'n, 491 A.2d 549, 5 52 (Me. 1985).

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on questions of fact.

Doe v. Lambrew · filed 2022-05-04(3)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3). ... The Court finds that the Department properly and reasonably weighed the interview evidence and that its reasoning is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 11007(3) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency’s on questions of fact.

Marquis v. Maine Department of Health and Human Services · filed 2022-10-04(3)

The Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact.

Section 11007 bars a court reviewing an agency decision under Rule 80C from substituting its judgment for the agency’s on questions of fact.

Residential and Community Support Services, Inc. v. Maine Department of Health and Human Services · filed 2024-02-26(8)

Rule 80C and the APA, however, do not permit a de novo review of the agency record. Instead, the scope of the court’s review is circumscribed by 5 M.R.S. § 11007(8), which provides that “[t]he court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact.”

Section 11007(4)(C) provides for review of board decisions for errors of law, abuse of discretion, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Murray v. City of Portland · filed 2022-08-01(4)(C)

The Coutt reviews Board decisions for errors of law, abuse of discretion, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C) (2022); Sproul v. Town ofBoothbay Harbor, 2000 ME 30, '1!8, 746 A.2d 368.

Section 11007(4)(C)(2) permits a reviewing court to consider whether an agency decision exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

Black v. Bureau of Parks and Lands · filed 2022-11-29(4)(C)(2)

His appeal of the 2020 lease met the Rule 80C time limits, and Rule 80C, along with the ... Maine Administrative Procedure Act, authorizes a reviewing court to entertain claims that an agency decision is “[i]n excess of the statutory authority of the agency.” 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C)(2) (2022).

Section 11007(4)(C)(2) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

Bureau of Taxation v. Town of Washburn · filed 1985-04-05(4)(C)(2)

For the reasons discussed above, we find an additional ground for reversal in the Board’s action in excess of ... its statutory authority.