See Markwardt v.State Water Resources Bd ., 254 N.W.2d 371, 374 (Minn. 1977); see also Casper v. Itasca CountyHuman Servs ., 531 N.W.2d 506, 508 (Minn.App. 1995). An agency's factual findings are reviewed under the substantial-evidence test.
Markwardt v. State Water Resources Bd., 254 N.W.2d 371, 374 (Minn. 1977); Casper v. Itasca County HumanServ., 531 N.W.2d 506, 508 (Minn.App. 1995). US WEST is not asserting that the Commission: (1) violated any constitutional provisions; (2) made a determination in excess of its statutory authority or jurisdiction; or (3) utilized any unlawful procedures in making its determination.
See Markwardt v. State Water Resources Bd., 254 N.W.2d 371, 374 (Minn. 1977); Casper v. Itasca County Human Servs., 531 N.W.2d 506, 508 (Minn.App. 1995). The administrative rule applicable to debarment provides that [a] business must be debarred by the Minnesota Department of Transportation when one or more of the grounds set forth in part 1230.3200 are established at a hearing or opportunity for hearing conducted under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 14.
The party seeking review has the burden of proving the decision violates one of these criteria. Casper v. Itasca County Human Servs., 531 N.W.2d 506, 508 (Minn.App. 1995). An agency's action must be consistent with its statutes and not based on mere "whim."