Which remedy challenges the results of a trial-type hearing by an administrative agency to see if the results are supported by substantial evidence?

Which remedy challenges the results of a trial-type hearing by an administrative agency to see if the results are supported by substantial evidence?

• A. Prohibition
• B. Certiorari
• C. Mandamus to Review
• D. Mandamus to Compel

Answer: (B)

The test is about how courts review a trial-type hearing by an administrative agency to see if the decision rests on substantial evidence. Certiorari is the remedy designed for this kind of challenge: it allows a court to review the agency’s record and determine whether the agency acted within its jurisdiction and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. The key idea is that the reviewing court doesn’t reweigh the evidence itself; it checks the record to ensure there is enough evidence to support the agency’s conclusions and that no grave abuse of discretion occurred. If the record shows the agency relied on insufficient or improper evidence, certiorari can lead to reversing or remanding the decision. Prohibition aims to halt proceedings that are beyond the agency’s jurisdiction before a decision is made, so it’s about stopping, not reviewing the sufficiency of the record. Mandamus to compel seeks to force the agency to perform a duty or issue a decision, not to assess the evidentiary support. Mandamus to review is a different posture that’s not the standard tool for evaluating whether the trial-type hearing’s results have substantial support.

The test is about how courts review a trial-type hearing by an administrative agency to see if the decision rests on substantial evidence. Certiorari is the remedy designed for this kind of challenge: it allows a court to review the agency’s record and determine whether the agency acted within its jurisdiction and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. The key idea is that the reviewing court doesn’t reweigh the evidence itself; it checks the record to ensure there is enough evidence to support the agency’s conclusions and that no grave abuse of discretion occurred. If the record shows the agency relied on insufficient or improper evidence, certiorari can lead to reversing or remanding the decision.

Prohibition aims to halt proceedings that are beyond the agency’s jurisdiction before a decision is made, so it’s about stopping, not reviewing the sufficiency of the record. Mandamus to compel seeks to force the agency to perform a duty or issue a decision, not to assess the evidentiary support. Mandamus to review is a different posture that’s not the standard tool for evaluating whether the trial-type hearing’s results have substantial support.