Serv. Comm’n, 120 S.W.3d 732, 734 (Mo. banc 2003). If the order is lawful, we must then determine whether it is reasonable. Sprint Spectrum, 112 S.W.3d at 24. Reasonableness depends on whether the order is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record; whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; or whether the Commission abused its discretion. Id. “The decision of the Commission on factual issues is presumed to be correct until the contrary is shown and we are obliged to sustain the Commission’s order if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.” State ex rel. Atmos Energy Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 103 S.W.3d 753, 759 (Mo. banc 2003). See Lagud v. Kansas City Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 136 S.W.3d 786, 791 (Mo. banc 2004) (<HOLDING>). “Effective Competition” Appellants Office of
holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record holding that although the board set forth the appropriate standard of review at the outset of its decision in this case whether the bia properly applied that standard was a question of law holding that there is no right to habeas review of administrative evidentiary determinations before a district court where direct review of the administrative proceedings is available in the appellate courts holding that the standard of review set forth in hampton v big boy steel erection 121 sw3d 220 mo banc 2003 a workers compensation review is applicable to other administrative proceedings as well holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record