That framework involves first determining whether any statute requires an evidentiary hearing. In both the Irving Parents and Rochester Board of Education cases, this Court simply assumed that, because some evidentiary proceedings were conducted, the contested case provisions of the APA must apply. No statute requires a hearing, and merely because the State Board of Education has chosen to better inform itself preparatory to rendering a decision does not change these proceedings into a contested case. No such determinations of administrative misfeasance can be viably made on this record. No claim is made that the evidence on either side was incompetent, that is, inadmissible, or that it was not material, i.e. , relevant.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance of the evidence.
Under this test, it does not matter that the contrary position is supported by more evidence, that is, which way the evidence preponderates, but only whether the position adopted by the agency is supported by evidence from which legitimate and supportable inferences were drawn. When there is sufficient evidence, a reviewing court may not substitute its discretion for that of the administrative tribunal, even if the court might have reached a different result. Great deference must be given to an agency's choice between two reasonable differing views as a reflection of the exercise of administrative expertise. Second, the amount of school taxes assessed on plaintiff's property in comparison with the educational services received is irrelevant. Of the 190 some properties owned by plaintiffs, there are only 15 children of school age.