Commission had no such jurisdiction, we stated that “an administrative agency is without authority to change, alter, or vacate an order while review proceedings are pending in the district court, even as an inferior court is without authority to vacate or modify a judgment after writ of error has issued out of this court directed to such judgment.” 143 Colo. at 594, 355 P.2d at 86; see also Marr v. Department of Revenue, 43 Colo.App. 36, 598 P.2d 155 (1979) (once judicial review action of department of revenue driver’s license revocation order is commenced, department is without jurisdiction to enter any further orders, including an order staying the revo cation, until final disposition of the judicial proceedings); Fischback & Moore of Alaska, Inc. v. Lynn, 407 P.2d 174 (Alaska 1965) (<HOLDING>) (overruled on other grounds by City and
holding that the evidence must be sufficient to support the agencys findings of fact and that the agencys inferences from those facts must be reasonable holding an action taken by an administrative agency in excess of its statutory powers is the well recognized exception to the general rule that an agencys final order  is immune from collateral attack holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties recognizing general rule that when an administrative agencys order is appealed to a court agencys power and authority over the matter is suspended because courts jurisdiction over subject matter must be complete and not interfered with or frustrated by concurrent action of administrative agency holding that the district court has broad authority to take jurisdiction over a matter even when that matter is not brought by a real party in interest