disputed. While our Supreme Court has held that de novo review is a “full” review in which the district court may take new evidence and independently reach the “questions which the [OSE] was required, in the first instance, to determinef,]” such latitude is not required here. In re Carlsbad Irrigation Dist., 1974-NMSC-082, ¶ 5, 87 N.M. 149, 530 P.2d 943 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The parties stipulated that the facts contained in the administrative record would constitute the entirety of available facts for any review, and no new evidence was taken in the district court. {16} Since summary judgment was granted, we presume the district court found no material facts in dispute. See Self v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 1998-NMSC-046, ¶ 6, 126 N.M. 396, 970 P.2d 582 (<HOLDING>). Protestants assert only that the district
holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate recognizing that summary judgment on any and all aspects of a partys claim including damages is proper if there are no genuine issues of material fact holding that summary judgment is appropriate when no issue of material fact exists and the court is reviewing administrative record for sufficiency of evidence holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment