the Board’s decision. The circuit court mailed copies of the October 28 order, but it is not clear to whom they were mailed. At some point, the Board and the County Attorney’s office apparently received the order. The Board caused a transcript of testimony to be prepared at its expense and, on December 1, 2004, forwarded the record, including the transcript, to the circuit court. On December 2, 2004, appellant, through the County Attorney, filed, in circuit court, a response to the petition for judicial review and a motion for reconsideration. Appellant acknowledged that the Board’s staff had failed to take action but contended that reversal of the Board’s decision was not an appropriate remedy. On December 14, 2004, appellee filed an opposition to the motion. O 21, 883 A.2d 953 (2005)(<HOLDING>). Judge Charles E. Moylan, writing for this
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 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 when an administrative agencys decision was a mixed question of fact and law a reviewing court should apply a clearly erroneous standard of review 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