Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

350 F.2d 949

Docket No. 19560.

Henrikson v. Udall

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Sept. 15, 1965, Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 1965.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1965-09-15

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It is the function of neither this Court nor of the District Court, in a proceeding such as this, to weigh the evidence adduced in the administrative proceeding. Rather, if upon review of the entire record of that proceeding there is found substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s decision, that decision must be affirmed.” Henrikson v. Udall, 350 F.2d 949, 950 (9th Cir. 1965) ; Adams v. United States, 318 F. 2d 861 (9th Cir. 1963).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 262 F. Supp. 583 - Converse v. Udall

Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Everett Foster v. Fred A. Seaton, Secretary of the Interior · 229 F. Supp. 510 - Henrikson v. Udall

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1965-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 1987 · most notably United States v. Wharton (1975), Nickol v. United States (1974)

21 federal appellate · 10 district ·

150196519701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Vernon Vale, Nagle, Vale & McDowall, San Mateo, Cal., for appellants.

Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Billingsley Hill and Robert M. Perry, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Cecil F. Poole, U.S. Atty., J. Harold Weise, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.

Before CHAMBERS, BASTIAN and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment by the United States District Court, Northern District of California, the effect of which was to uphold appellees' decision denying appellants' application for a land patent in the Tahoe National Forest.

¶2

It is the function of neither this Court nor of the District Court, in a proceeding such as this, to weigh the evidence adduced in the administrative proceeding. Rather, if upon review of the entire record of that proceeding there is found substantial evidence to support the Secretary's decision, that decision must be affirmed. Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B.,340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); Foster v. Seaton, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 253, 271 F.2d 836 (1959).

¶3

We are satisfied, as was the District Court, that the decision of the Secretary is supported by substantial evidence. The opinion of Chief Judge Harris (229 F.Supp. 510 (1964)) reviews the evidence in some detail; and we find no fault with the grant of summary judgment.

¶4

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is

¶5

Affirmed.

/350/f2d/949 · .json · Public domain