What is the most typical standard of review when an administrative agency's decision is appealed?

The standard of review that is most typically applied when an administrative agency's decision is appealed is "on the record." This means that the reviewing court examines the evidence and findings as they exist in the administrative record created during the agency's proceedings. The focus is on whether the agency's decision is supported by the applicable statutory authority and whether it adheres to the proper procedures as established by law.

In the context of administrative law, this standard emphasizes the importance of the record compiled during the administrative process, which includes testimonies, evidence, and any other relevant documentation. The court will assess whether the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion based on this existing record. The rationale is to respect the agency's expertise and the administrative process, as agencies are often formed with specialized knowledge relevant to their specific fields.

Some other standards mentioned, like "de novo," would imply a fresh examination of the evidence, ignoring the agency's original decision, which is not typical for administrative appeals. Similarly, "substantial evidence" may be used in specific contexts where a court reviews factual findings of an agency, and "clear and convincing evidence" is a higher standard of proof generally applicable in certain legal circumstances, such as in civil cases involving