When quasi-judicial decisions arise as issues of fact, what are courts less likely to do?

When quasi-judicial decisions arise as issues of fact, courts are less likely to second-guess the agency's evidence. This is rooted in the principle of deference that courts grant to administrative agencies, particularly when these agencies have specialized expertise in their respective fields.

Quasi-judicial actions involve the resolution of factual disputes and the interpretation of evidence presented before the agency. Courts typically recognize that agencies have the necessary experience and knowledge to evaluate evidence effectively and make determinations based on that evidence. Therefore, when reviewing these decisions, courts often refrain from re-evaluating the evidence that the agency considered, focusing instead on procedural correctness and whether the agency acted within its statutory authority.

In this context, while courts may reconsider facts in some cases, accept some conclusions based on law, or even modify an agency's final decision if it is deemed arbitrary or capricious, they maintain a distinct reluctance to delve into the evidentiary aspects of the agency's findings. This maintains the balance of power and respects the agency's role in administrative law.