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.