to resolve conflicting evidence. Despite some unfortunate language that has crept into a few of our opinions, a court’s task on review is not to substitute its judgment for the expertise of those persons who consti tute the administrative agency. Even with regard to some legal issues, a degree of deference should often be accorded the position of the administrative agency. Thus, an administrative agency’s interpretation and application of the statute which the agency administers should ordinarily be given considerable weight by reviewing courts. Furthermore, the expertise of the agency in its own field should be respected. Id. at 67-69, 729 A.2d 376 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Maryland Aviation Admin, v. No-land, 386 Md. 556, 581, 873 A.2d 1145 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Harvey v. Marshall, 389 Md. 243, 884 A.2d
holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable holding that the circuit court was not authorized to overturn state agencys decision where the sanction was lawful authorized and within the discretion of the agency and it was not shown to be arbitrary or capricious holding that the citys decision was arbitrary and capricious when it was contrary to the evidence and based solely on speculation arising from prior unrelated acts holding that an agencys decision is to be set aside only if it is arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law 