Simms v Simms et al

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Counsel for the Commission and TV Racing Parties argued that SB 1063 did not replace the substantial evidence standard with de novo review because the legislature retained the substantial evidence language in ARS 12-910(F) while explicitly using 'de novo' only in subsection (D).
2. The Commission's counsel contended that the 'no deference' command in the fourth sentence of the statute applies only when a court is deciding a question of fact, whereas substantial evidence review is a question of law and thus unaffected by that specific clause.
3. Respondent's counsel argued that the 2021 amendment instructs courts to decide all questions of fact without deference to previous agency determinations, effectively removing deference for the agency while leaving deference for Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) intact.
4. Respondent's counsel asserted that because ALJs are independent entities who observe live testimony, courts should defer to their factual findings, particularly regarding credibility, even when the agency reverses those findings.
5. Counsel for the Commission argued that Title 41 prohibits looking past the agency's final decision, stating that ALJs only provide recommendations and that the statute does not mention deferring to ALJ findings.
6. The parties debated whether the term 'regulated party' limits the scope of the no-deference rule, with Respondent arguing it targets cases where the agency acts as both judge and party, while Commission counsel suggested it relates to the right to a trial de novo under subsection (D).

Recordings

1. Recording · PT42M27S · Captions available