We have frequently stated that when the circuit court takes no evidence the circuit court should afford the Board's decision about a variance a presumption of correctness and validity; that the circuit court should hesitate to interfere with the Board's decision on variances; the circuit court should not disturb the findings of the Board if any reasonable view of the evidence sustains them; and the circuit court should defer to the Board's decision unless it is unreasonable and without a rational basis.State ex rel. Brookside v. Jefferson Bd. of Adjustment, 131 Wis.2d 101, 120, 388 N.W.2d 593 (1986); Nufer v. Village Board of Palmyra, 92 Wis.2d 289, 301, 284 N.W.2d 649 (1979); Snyder v. Waukesha County Zoning Board, 74 Wis.2d 468, 475-476, 247 N.W.2d 98, 103 (1976); State ex rel. Schleck v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 254 Wis. 42, 52, 35 N.W. 312 (1948); State ex rel. Morehouse v. Hunt, 235 Wis. 358, 367, 291 N.W. 745 (1940). When, as in this case, the circuit court takes evidence that is substantially the same as that taken by the Board, deference to the Board demands that the evidentiary hearing should be treated as a nullity for purposes of determining the standard of review to be applied to the Board's decision.
The procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972); Nufer v. Village Bd. of Village of Palmyra, 92 Wis.2d 289, 296, 284 N.W.2d 649 (1979). Thus, to determine the applicability of due process requirements, we must examine the property and liberty interests of which Taplick claims he was wrongfully deprived.
If any reasonable view of the evidence would sustain the Committee's findings, they are conclusive. Id. at 304–05, 519 N.W.2d 782 (citing Nufer v. Village Bd., 92 Wis.2d 289, 301, 284 N.W.2d 649 (1979) ). “Even if we would not have made the same decision, in the absence of statutory authorization, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the zoning authority.” Id. at 305, 519 N.W.2d 782 (citing Buhler v. Racine Cty., 33 Wis.2d 137, 146–47, 146 N.W.2d 403 (1966) ).
Thus, the agency's decision must be upheld if supported by any reasonable view of the evidence. See Nufer v. Village Bd. of Village of Palmyra, 92 Wis.2d 289, 301, 284 N.W.2d 649 (1979).¶ 6 In determining whether Jardine should be released on parole, the Commission considered proper factors and concluded:
This claim likewise fails.¶ 19 In a public employment context, liberty comprises two interests: reputation and employability. Nufer v. Village Bd. of Palmyra, 92 Wis.2d 289, 297, 284 N.W.2d 649 (1979). The reputation interest is infringed when “charges impugn one's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity in the community.
Robertson Transp. Co. v. PSC, 39 Wis.2d 653, 658, 159 N.W.2d 636 (1968). Thus, if any reasonable view of the evidence would sustain the lower tribunal's findings, the findings are conclusive. Nufer v. Village Bd. of Palmyra, 92 Wis.2d 289, 301, 284 N.W.2d 649 (Ct.App. 1979). ¶ 8.
State ex rel Brookside PoultryFarms, Inc. v. Jefferson County Bd. of Adjustment, 131 Wis.2d 101, 120, 388 N.W.2d 593 (1986). Thus, if any reasonable view of the evidence would sustain the lower tribunal's findings, the findings are conclusive. Nuferv. Village Bd. of Palmyra, 92 Wis.2d 289, 301, 284 N.W.2d 649 (1979). It is not this court's role to weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, seeVan Ermen v. DHSS, 84 Wis.2d 57, 64, 267 N.W.2d 17 (1978); that belongs to the committee, seeid.
¶ 7. The agency's decision must be upheld if supported by any reasonable view of the evidence. SeeNufer v. Village Bd. ofPalmyra, 92 Wis.2d 289, 301, 284 N.W.2d 649 (1979). The court's inquiry is limited to whether there is substantial evidence to support the decision; i.e., "whether reasonable minds could arrive at the same conclusion reached by the Department."
"The facts found by the committee are conclusive if supported by `any reasonable view' of the evidence, and we may not substitute our view of the evidence for that of the committee." State ex rel. Jones v. Franklin, 151 Wis.2d 419, 425, 444 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Ct.App. 1989) ( quotingNufer v.Village Bd. of Palmyra, 92 Wis.2d 289, 301, 284 N.W.2d 649, 655 (1979)). Hall first argues that the evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing was insufficient for the committee to find him guilty of possession of intoxicants and creating a hazard.
SeeVanErmen v. DHSS, 84 Wis.2d 57, 64, 267 N.W.2d 17, 20 (1978). The agency's factual findings are conclusive if in any reasonable view the evidence sustains them. SeeNufer v. Village Board, 92 Wis.2d 289, 301, 284 N.W.2d 649, 655 (1979). SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE