restrictive standard in Connecticut

1999The substantial evidence rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous action. . . ." (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dolgner v. Alander, 237 Conn. 272 , 281 (1996).

1998The substantial evidence rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous action . . ." (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dolgner v. Alander , 237 Conn. 272 , 281 (1996).

2007The substantial evidence standard “imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and [provides] a more restrictive standard of review than [the] clearly erroneous [standard of review].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sweetman v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, 249 Conn. 296, 331 , 732 A.2d 144 (1999).

2007The substantial evidence standard “imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and [provides] a more restrictive standard of review than [the] clearly erroneous [standard of review].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sweetman v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, 249 Conn. 296, 331 , 732 A.2d 144 (1999).

2020In light of the significant amount of deference that the substantial evidence standard affords a commission, the court has described it as ‘‘an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . [that] provide[s] a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evi- dence or clearly erroneous action.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Property Group, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 226 Conn. 684 , 697–98, 628 A.2d 1277 (1993).

2020In light of the significant amount of deference that the substantial evidence standard affords a commission, the court has described it as ‘‘an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . [that] provide[s] a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evi- dence or clearly erroneous action.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Property Group, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 226 Conn. 684 , 697–98, 628 A.2d 1277 (1993).

2002The substantial evidence rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous action. . . . [S]ubstantial evidence . . . is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence. . . ." (Citations omitted.) Cadlerock Properties v.

2001The substantial evidence rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous action. . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

2011The substantial evidence rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and . . . provide [s] a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous action. . . . [I]t is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not *721 prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Spitz v.

2011The substantial evidence rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and . . . provide [s] a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous action. . . . [I]t is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not *721 prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Spitz v.

2002The reviewing court must take into account [that there is] contradictory evidence in the record . . . but the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence. . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Samperi v. Inland Wetlands Agency, 226 Conn. 579 , 587-88 (1993).

1996The United States Supreme Court, in defining substantial evidence in the directed verdict formulation, has said that it is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence. ...” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Newtown v. Keeney, 234 Conn. 312, 319-20 , 661 A.2d 589 (1995); Samperi v. Inland Wetlands Agency, 226 Conn. 579, 588 , 628 A.2d 1286 (1993).

2002Newtown v. Keeney , 234 Conn. 312 , 319 (1995).

1996The United States Supreme Court, in defining substantial evidence in the directed verdict formulation, has said that it is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence. ...” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Newtown v. Keeney, 234 Conn. 312, 319-20 , 661 A.2d 589 (1995); Samperi v. Inland Wetlands Agency, 226 Conn. 579, 588 , 628 A.2d 1286 (1993).

2001"The determination of whether substantial evidence exists is subject to de novo review by this court." Labenski v. Goldberg, 33 Conn. App. 727 , 733 , 638 A.2d 614 (1994).

2001"The determination of whether substantial evidence exists is subject to de novo review by this court." Labenski v. Goldberg, 33 Conn. App. 727 , 733 , 638 A.2d 614 (1994).

1996DeBeradinis v. Zoning Commission , supra, [ 228 Conn.] 199 ; Primerica v. Planning Zoning Commission , 211 Conn. 85 , 96 , 558 A.2d 646 (1989)." Keiser v. Conservation Commission , 41 Conn. App. 39 , 41 , 674 A.2d 439 (1996). "`Th[e] . . . substantial evidence rule is similar to the sufficiency of the evidence standard applied in judicial review of jury verdicts, and evidence is sufficient to sustain an agency finding if it affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. . . . [I]t imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overtu

1996DeBeradinis v. Zoning Commission , supra, [ 228 Conn.] 199 ; Primerica v. Planning Zoning Commission , 211 Conn. 85 , 96 , 558 A.2d 646 (1989)." Keiser v. Conservation Commission , 41 Conn. App. 39 , 41 , 674 A.2d 439 (1996). "`Th[e] . . . substantial evidence rule is similar to the sufficiency of the evidence standard applied in judicial review of jury verdicts, and evidence is sufficient to sustain an agency finding if it affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. . . . [I]t imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overtu

1988On the other hand, it is review of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration. . . . [It] imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of ‘weight of the evidence’ or ‘clearly erroneous’ action. . . . ” ’ (Citations omitted.) Lawrence v. Kozlowski, [ 171 Conn. 705, 713-14 , 372 A.2d 110 (1976), cert, denied, 431 U.S. 969 , 97 S. Ct. 2930 , 53 L.

1988On the other hand, it is review of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration. . . . [It] imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of ‘weight of the evidence’ or ‘clearly erroneous’ action. . . . ” ’ (Citations omitted.) Lawrence v. Kozlowski, [ 171 Conn. 705, 713-14 , 372 A.2d 110 (1976), cert, denied, 431 U.S. 969 , 97 S. Ct. 2930 , 53 L.

2024As with any administrative appeal, our role is not to reexamine the evidence presented to the council or to substitute our judgment for the agency’s expertise, but, rather, to determine whether there was substantial evidence to support its conclusions.’’ (Cita- tions omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fair- windCT, Inc. v. Connecticut Siting Council, supra, 313 Conn. 689–90. ‘‘The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or deci

2024As with any administrative appeal, our role is not to reexamine the evidence presented to the council or to substitute our judgment for the agency’s expertise, but, rather, to determine whether there was substantial evidence to support its conclusions.’’ (Cita- tions omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fair- windCT, Inc. v. Connecticut Siting Council, supra, 313 Conn. 689–90. ‘‘The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or deci

2022Conclusions of law reached by the administrative agency must stand if the court deter- mines that they resulted from a correct application of the law to the facts found and could reasonably and logically follow from such facts.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Blinkoff v. Commis- sion on Human Rights & Opportunities, 129 Conn. App. 714 , 720–21, 20 A.3d 1272 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 922 , 28 A.3d 341 (2011). ‘‘Cases that present pure questions of law, however, invoke a broader standard of review than is . . . involved in deciding whether, in light of the evidence, the a

2022Conclusions of law reached by the administrative agency must stand if the court deter- mines that they resulted from a correct application of the law to the facts found and could reasonably and logically follow from such facts.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Blinkoff v. Commis- sion on Human Rights & Opportunities, 129 Conn. App. 714 , 720–21, 20 A.3d 1272 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 922 , 28 A.3d 341 (2011). ‘‘Cases that present pure questions of law, however, invoke a broader standard of review than is . . . involved in deciding whether, in light of the evidence, the a

2022Conclusions of law reached by the administrative agency must stand if the court deter- mines that they resulted from a correct application of the law to the facts found and could reasonably and logically follow from such facts.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Blinkoff v. Commis- sion on Human Rights & Opportunities, 129 Conn. App. 714 , 720–21, 20 A.3d 1272 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 922 , 28 A.3d 341 (2011). ‘‘Cases that present pure questions of law, however, invoke a broader standard of review than is . . . involved in deciding whether, in light of the evidence, the a

2022Conclusions of law reached by the administrative agency must stand if the court deter- mines that they resulted from a correct application of the law to the facts found and could reasonably and logically follow from such facts.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Blinkoff v. Commis- sion on Human Rights & Opportunities, 129 Conn. App. 714 , 720–21, 20 A.3d 1272 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 922 , 28 A.3d 341 (2011). ‘‘Cases that present pure questions of law, however, invoke a broader standard of review than is . . . involved in deciding whether, in light of the evidence, the a

2019The United States Supreme Court, in defining substantial evidence in the directed verdict formulation, has said that it is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cadlerock Properties Joint Venture, L.P. v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection , 253 Conn. 661 , 676-77, 757 A.2d 1 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1148 , 121 S.Ct. 1089 , 148 L.Ed.2d 963 (2001).

2002The substantial evidence rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous action. . . . [S]ubstantial evidence . . . is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence. . . ." (Citations omitted.) Cadlerock Properties v.

2019The United States Supreme Court, in defining substantial evidence in the directed verdict formulation, has said that it is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cadlerock Properties Joint Venture, L.P. v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection , 253 Conn. 661 , 676-77, 757 A.2d 1 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1148 , 121 S.Ct. 1089 , 148 L.Ed.2d 963 (2001).

2002The substantial evidence rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous action. . . . [S]ubstantial evidence . . . is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence. . . ." (Citations omitted.) Cadlerock Properties v.

2002The United States Supreme Court, in defining substantial evidence in the directed verdict formulation, has said that it is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Elf v. Dept. of Public Health, 66 Conn. App. 410, 417-19 , 784 A.2d 979 (2001).

2002The United States Supreme Court, in defining substantial evidence in the directed verdict formulation, has said that it is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Elf v. Dept. of Public Health, 66 Conn. App. 410, 417-19 , 784 A.2d 979 (2001).

2001This so-called substantial evidence rule is similar to the sufficiency of the evidence standard applied in judicial review of jury verdicts, and evidence is sufficient to sustain an agency finding if it affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably infeixed. . . . [I]t imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous action.” (Citations omitted; internal quotati

2001This so-called substantial evidence rule is similar to the sufficiency of the evidence standard applied in judicial review of jury verdicts, and evidence is sufficient to sustain an agency finding if it affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably infeixed. . . . [I]t imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous action.” (Citations omitted; internal quotati

2001(Brackets in original, citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Newtown v. Keeney, supra, 234 Conn. 319 -20." Keiser v. Conservation CT Page 12151 Commission, 41 Conn. App. 39 , 41-42 , 674 A.2d 439 (1996) "The credibility of witnesses and the determination of factual issues are matters within the province of the administrative agency." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dumont v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 48 Conn. App. 635 , 640 , 712 A.2d 427 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 917 , 717 A.2d 234 (1998).

2001(Brackets in original, citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Newtown v. Keeney, supra, 234 Conn. 319 -20." Keiser v. Conservation CT Page 12151 Commission, 41 Conn. App. 39 , 41-42 , 674 A.2d 439 (1996) "The credibility of witnesses and the determination of factual issues are matters within the province of the administrative agency." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dumont v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 48 Conn. App. 635 , 640 , 712 A.2d 427 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 917 , 717 A.2d 234 (1998).

2001(Brackets in original, citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Newtown v. Keeney, supra, 234 Conn. 319 -20." Keiser v. Conservation CT Page 12151 Commission, 41 Conn. App. 39 , 41-42 , 674 A.2d 439 (1996) "The credibility of witnesses and the determination of factual issues are matters within the province of the administrative agency." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dumont v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 48 Conn. App. 635 , 640 , 712 A.2d 427 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 917 , 717 A.2d 234 (1998).

2001(Brackets in original, citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Newtown v. Keeney, supra, 234 Conn. 319 -20." Keiser v. Conservation CT Page 12151 Commission, 41 Conn. App. 39 , 41-42 , 674 A.2d 439 (1996) "The credibility of witnesses and the determination of factual issues are matters within the province of the administrative agency." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dumont v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 48 Conn. App. 635 , 640 , 712 A.2d 427 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 917 , 717 A.2d 234 (1998).

1991On the other hand, it is review of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration. . . . [Kopec v. Buffalo Brake-Beam Acme Steel Malleable Iron Works, 304 N.Y. 65 , 106 N.E.2d 12 .] The `substantial evidence' rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency. . . [Board of Firemen's Relief Retirement Fund Trustees v. Marks, 150 Tex. 433 , 242 S.W.2d 181 ; Trapp v. Shell Oil Co., 145 Tex. 323 , 198 S.W.2d 424 ], and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of `weight of

1991On the other hand, it is review of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration. . . . [Kopec v. Buffalo Brake-Beam Acme Steel Malleable Iron Works, 304 N.Y. 65 , 106 N.E.2d 12 .] The `substantial evidence' rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency. . . [Board of Firemen's Relief Retirement Fund Trustees v. Marks, 150 Tex. 433 , 242 S.W.2d 181 ; Trapp v. Shell Oil Co., 145 Tex. 323 , 198 S.W.2d 424 ], and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of `weight of

1991On the other hand, it is review of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration. . . . [Kopec v. Buffalo Brake-Beam Acme Steel Malleable Iron Works, 304 N.Y. 65 , 106 N.E.2d 12 .] The `substantial evidence' rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency. . . [Board of Firemen's Relief Retirement Fund Trustees v. Marks, 150 Tex. 433 , 242 S.W.2d 181 ; Trapp v. Shell Oil Co., 145 Tex. 323 , 198 S.W.2d 424 ], and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of `weight of

1991On the other hand, it is review of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration. . . . [Kopec v. Buffalo Brake-Beam Acme Steel Malleable Iron Works, 304 N.Y. 65 , 106 N.E.2d 12 .] The `substantial evidence' rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency. . . [Board of Firemen's Relief Retirement Fund Trustees v. Marks, 150 Tex. 433 , 242 S.W.2d 181 ; Trapp v. Shell Oil Co., 145 Tex. 323 , 198 S.W.2d 424 ], and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of `weight of

1991On the other hand, it is review of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration. . . . [Kopec v. Buffalo Brake-Beam Acme Steel Malleable Iron Works, 304 N.Y. 65 , 106 N.E.2d 12 .] The `substantial evidence' rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency. . . [Board of Firemen's Relief Retirement Fund Trustees v. Marks, 150 Tex. 433 , 242 S.W.2d 181 ; Trapp v. Shell Oil Co., 145 Tex. 323 , 198 S.W.2d 424 ], and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of `weight of

1991On the other hand, it is review of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration. . . . [Kopec v. Buffalo Brake-Beam Acme Steel Malleable Iron Works, 304 N.Y. 65 , 106 N.E.2d 12 .] The `substantial evidence' rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency. . . [Board of Firemen's Relief Retirement Fund Trustees v. Marks, 150 Tex. 433 , 242 S.W.2d 181 ; Trapp v. Shell Oil Co., 145 Tex. 323 , 198 S.W.2d 424 ], and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of `weight of

1991On the other hand, it is review of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration. . . . [Kopec v. Buffalo Brake-Beam Acme Steel Malleable Iron Works, 304 N.Y. 65 , 106 N.E.2d 12 .] The `substantial evidence' rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency. . . [Board of Firemen's Relief Retirement Fund Trustees v. Marks, 150 Tex. 433 , 242 S.W.2d 181 ; Trapp v. Shell Oil Co., 145 Tex. 323 , 198 S.W.2d 424 ], and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of `weight of

1991On the other hand, it is review of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration. . . . [Kopec v. Buffalo Brake-Beam Acme Steel Malleable Iron Works, 304 N.Y. 65 , 106 N.E.2d 12 .] The `substantial evidence' rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency. . . [Board of Firemen's Relief Retirement Fund Trustees v. Marks, 150 Tex. 433 , 242 S.W.2d 181 ; Trapp v. Shell Oil Co., 145 Tex. 323 , 198 S.W.2d 424 ], and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of `weight of

1988On the other hand, it is review of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration. . . . [It] imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of ‘weight of the evidence’ or ‘clearly erroneous’ action. . . . ” ’ (Citations omitted.) Lawrence v. Kozlowski, [ 171 Conn. 705, 713-14 , 372 A.2d 110 (1976), cert, denied, 431 U.S. 969 , 97 S. Ct. 2930 , 53 L.

1988On the other hand, it is review of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration. . . . [It] imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of ‘weight of the evidence’ or ‘clearly erroneous’ action. . . .” ’ (Citations omitted.) Lawrence v. Kozlowski, [ 171 Conn. 705, 713-14 , 372 A.2d 110 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 969 , 97 S. Ct. 2930 , 53 L.

1988On the other hand, it is review of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration. . . . [It] imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of ‘weight of the evidence’ or ‘clearly erroneous’ action. . . . ” ’ (Citations omitted.) Lawrence v. Kozlowski, [ 171 Conn. 705, 713-14 , 372 A.2d 110 (1976), cert, denied, 431 U.S. 969 , 97 S. Ct. 2930 , 53 L.

1988On the other hand, it is review of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration. . . . [It] imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of ‘weight of the evidence’ or ‘clearly erroneous’ action. . . .” ’ (Citations omitted.) Lawrence v. Kozlowski, [ 171 Conn. 705, 713-14 , 372 A.2d 110 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 969 , 97 S. Ct. 2930 , 53 L.

2023The United States Supreme Court, in defining substantial evidence in the directed verdict formulation, has said that it is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclu- sions from the evidence does not prevent an administra- tive agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Stratford Police Dept. v. Board of Firearms Per- mit Examiners, 343 Conn. 62, 81 , 272 A.3d 639 (2022).

2022When there is evidence in the record to substantiate the commission’s deter- mination, the determination must stand.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) McLoughlin v. Planning & Zoning Commis- sion, 200 Conn. App. 307 , 318–20, 240 A.3d 709 , cert. granted, 335 Conn. 978 , 241 A.3d 131 (2020).