substantial evidence
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 340 U.S. 474 - Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · 1951Most cited · 22,957 citing opinions
more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
How the Supreme Court has restated “substantial evidence”
Each Supreme Court definition of “substantial evidence,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “substantial evidence”
Court decisions citing the 6 opinions that defined “substantial evidence” — 27,232 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 6 definitions, chronological · 1934–1972
- ORIGINAL
when the Commission exercises its authority upon due hearing, as prescribed, and without error in the application of rules of law, its findings of fact supported by substantial evidence are not subject to review. It is not the province of the courts to substitute their judgment for that of the Commission.
administrative findings
- 1939·306 U.S. 292 - National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.[p14]· cited 1,976×
Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, and must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established. 'It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,' and it must be enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury.
Substantial evidence' has become a term of art to describe the basis on which an administrative record is to be judged by a reviewing court. This standard goes to the reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it, for a decision may be supported by substantial evidence even though it could be refuted by other evidence that was not presented to the decision-making body.
Substantial evidence is 'enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury.
well-reasoned expert testimony based on what is known and uncontradicted by empirical evidence may in and of itself be 'substantial evidence' when first-hand evidence on the question (in this case how electricity moves within a bus) is unavailable