Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): court’s decision did not address it. [¶ 12] In Matter of Boschee, 347 N.W.2d 331, 334-35, we said in appeals from administrative agency decisions, courts may consider only those grounds identified in specifications of error under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-15, and the grounds specified must come within the provisions of N.D.C.C. § 28-32-19. See Dodds v. North Dakota State Highway Comm’r, 354 N.W.2d 165, 169 n. 4 (N.D.1984); Cf., Application of Otter Tail Power Co., 354 N.W.2d 701, 702-04 (N.D.1984) (stating under certain circumstances constitutional issue may be raised for the first time on appeal of administrative agency decision). Clyde did not raise this issue in his specifications of error to the district court. Vetter v. NoHh Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 554 N.W.2d 451, 453-54 (N.D.1996) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, he has not postured his argument in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the power of any administrative agency to reconsider its final decision exists only where the statutory provisions creating the agency indicate a legislative intent to permit the agency to carry into effect such power (B) holding that because the scope of review of agency matters is confined to the administrative record discovery in the form of depositions from agency officials was improper and irrelevant (C) holding that a party who had demonstrated an injury sufficient to confer standing to appeal from an agency decision could raise  any relevant question of law in respect of the order of the agency (D) holding specifications of error in appeal from administrative agency decision must be reasonably specific and calculated to identify the matters truly at issue sufficient to fairly apprise the agency other parties and the court of the particular issues claimed (E) holding that the court must find that the agency entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or the decision is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise
Output (English): holding that the court must find that the agency entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or the decision is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise