Opinion ID: 884992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 15 Did the District Court exceed its scope of review of an administrative agency decision pursuant to the Montana Administrative Procedures Act? ¶ 16 The scope of a district court's review of an agency decision is a question of law, because the power to review agency decisions is provided for in the Montana Administrative Procedures Act. ¶ 17 Section 2-4-702(1)(a), MCA, of the Montana Administrative Procedure Act provides that [a] person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review under this chapter. Section 2-4-704, MCA, describes the method and scope of review: (1) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency not shown in the record, proof thereof may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs. (2) The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because: (a) the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (i) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (ii) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (iii) made upon unlawful procedure; (iv) affected by other error of law; (v) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; (vi) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or .... (b) findings of fact, upon issues essential to the decision, were not made although requested. ¶ 18 [T]his Court reviews findings of fact in administrative cases to determine whether the findings are clearly erroneous; we review conclusions of law to determine whether they are correct. This latter standard includes determining whether the law was properly applied to the facts. Baldridge v. Board of Trustees, Rosebud County Sch. Dist. (1994), 264 Mont. 199, 870 P.2d 711 (citation omitted). ¶ 19 In this case, the District Court reviewed the County Superintendent's findings of fact and conclusions of law challenged by Quick in her petition. It concluded that the findings were supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence, and that none of the Superintendent's conclusions were in error. The District Court then went on to conclude that the County Superintendent failed to consider Quick's due process and First Amendment rights, as well as evidence of retaliation. Because the District Court did not include retaliation as a basis for its order reversing the agency decision, however, we do not consider it further on appeal. See Rule 1, M.R.App.P.
¶ 20 The District Court concluded that the County Superintendent erred when she failed to consider the full due process requirements in School District Policies 1521(5) and (6), Principals for Board-Administration Relations, which state: