with whether or not they are affected by errors of law; and whether or not their findings are unsupported by substantial evidence; and whether or not their conclusions are arbitrary or capricious.” Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 827 (Minn.1977) (emphasis added). Though our holding was limited to review of those two agencies, our syllabus goes further, stating that “[i]n reviewing the decisions of administrative agencies, the district court and the supreme court are governed by the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act ... and shall determine inter alia whether the agencies’ findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether their conclusions are arbitrary and capricious.” Id. at 811; cf. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 416-17 (Minn.1981) (<HOLDING>). We recently reaffirmed the broad and general
recognizing that we may not substitute our judgment for that of the alj  recognizing that though our case law has expressed our standards in various ways the substantive principles of arbitrary or capricious review are always applicable holding that claims not raised in an appellants initial brief to our court are waived holding that it is not our prerogative to overrule or ignore clearly written decisions of our supreme court holding that because the contract dispute between the parties in this case constitutes a justiciable matter that is cognizable in our trial courts our courts had subject matter jurisdiction