50. Substitute judgment. [See also Discretion
& Scope of review]
a. "Respondents recognize the general rule that a court is
not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of a zoning board, in this case
the board of county commissioners."
McKenzie v. Shelly, 77 Nev. 237, 240, 362 P.2d
268 (1961). No. 6.
b. "The review of administrative decisions by the district
court and this court is limited to the record made before the administrative tribunal,
and in the absence of a showing that the agency acted fraudulently or arbitrarily,
the district court may not substitute its opinion for that of the city commissioners.
City of Reno v. Folsom, 86 Nev. 39, 464 P.2d 454 (1970); Urban Renewal
Agency v. Iacometti, 79 Nev. 113, 379 P.2d // 466 (1963); McKenzie v. Shelly,
77 Nev. 237, 362 P.2d 268 (1961); City of Henderson v. Henderson Auto Wrecking,
Inc., supra; Nevada Tax Comm'n v. Hicks, 73 Nev. 115, 310 P.2d 852 (1957).
State ex rel. Johns v. Gragson, 89 Nev. 478,
482-483, 515 P.2d 65 (1973). No. 15.
c. "When reviewing an administrative board's actions, this
court, like the district court, is limited to the record below and to whether
the board acted arbitrarily or capriciously. (citation omitted) The question thus
becomes whether the board's decision was based on substantial evidence; if based
on substantial evidence neither this court, nor // the district court, may substitute
its judgment for the administrator's determination."
State, Emp. Security v. Hilton Hotels, 102 Nev.
606, 607-608, 729 P.2d 497 (1986) No. 33.