states that judicial review as provided in this chapter is the exclusive method of review of the commission’s actions. Therefore, the proper standard of review in the instant case is determined by the Act. ¶ 41. As further support of their position on the standard of review, CDS refers this Court to an identical Nevada standard of review. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 463.3666 (Supp.1998). The “any evidence” standard has also been applied by the Nevada Supreme Court. M & R Inv. Co. v. Nevada Gaming Comm’n, 93 Nev. 35, 559 P.2d 829 (1977) (court’s function is to review the evidence presented to the Commission and to determine if there is any evidence to support the decision of the Commission); see also Nevada Gaming Comm’n v. Consolidated Casinos Corp., 94 Nev. 139, 575 P.2d 1337 (1978) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 42. Therefore, the circuit court improperly
holding that if a trial court reaches the right result but for the wrong reasons it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record holding that a courts role in reviewing an administrative agency decision is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agencys findings and conclusions and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law holding that the authority to determine the appropriate penalty is with the supervisor of liquor control and not the administrative hearing commission or the reviewing court holding that a reviewing courts task is to determine whether there was substantial evidence before the administrative agency on the record as a whole to support the agencys conclusions holding that in reviewing a gaming commission decision the court will examine the record to determine if there is any evidence to support the commissions order