In MacDermid, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 257 Conn. 128, 778 A.2d 7 (2001), the Court reviewed the applicable ground rules: "Even as to questions of law, the court's ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the agency has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion. . . . Conclusions of law reached by the administrative agency must stand if the court determines that they resulted from a correct application of the law to the facts found and could reasonably and logically follow from such facts. . . . Ordinarily, this court affords deference to the construction of a statute applied by the administrative agency empowered by law to carry out the statute's purposes. . . . Cases that present pure questions of law, however, invoke a broader standard of review than is ordinarily involved in deciding whether, in light of the evidence, the agency has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion. . . . Furthermore, when . . . an agency's determination of a question of law has not previously been subject to judicial scrutiny . . . the agency is not entitled to special deference." Id., 137.