Opinion ID: 1381677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues of fact under the apa

Text: Judicial review is not selective, but must be conducted on the entire record, not by isolating evidence. Norway Hill Preserv. & Protec. Ass'n v. King Cy. Coun., 87 Wn.2d 267, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). The duty of the reviewing court to search the entire record for evidence both supportive of and contrary to the agency's findings is found in Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 95 L.Ed. 456, 71 S.Ct. 456 (1951). RCW 34.04.130(6)(e) addresses the clearly erroneous standard of review for factual determinations in view of the entire record. [3] As previously discussed, the APA's clearly erroneous standard of review for factual determinations governs. The APA amendment in 1967 did away with a substantial evidence test replacing it with the clearly erroneous test. This change clearly indicated that the Legislature intended to allow broader, more intensive review of an agency's factual determinations. Ancheta v. Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255, 259, 461 P.2d 531 (1969). See also Abrahams, Scope of Review of Administrative Action in Washington: A Proposal, 14 Gonz. L. Rev. 75, 80 (1978). The present test allows for greater judicial scrutiny of agency fact-finding as the reviewing court can declare a finding to be clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Ancheta, at 259-60. [4] In Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wn.2d 570, 343 P.2d 183 (1959), we ended our former practice of trying de novo questions of fact already determined by trial courts. Cf. Smith v. Skagit Cy., 75 Wn.2d 715, 453 P.2d 832 (1969) (wherein this court reviewed the record de novo because the trial court had not heard testimony requiring it to assess the credibility of witnesses, to weigh evidence, or reconcile conflicting evidence). Substitution of our judgment for that of the administrative agency in factual matters is not authorized by the APA and, by reasoning of Hesperian Orchards, we will not try facts de novo on review. Although the Court of Appeals correctly points out that there was credible evidence contrary to the tribunal's findings, the findings are not clearly erroneous and should not have been tried de novo as was done by that court. See Stempel v. Department of Water Resources, 82 Wn.2d 109, 508 P.2d 166 (1973).