Henrikson v. Udall

Ninth Circuit

Henrikson v. Udall

350 F.2d 949, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4495

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 15, 1965·No. No. 19560·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

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).

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.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

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.

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).

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.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

Henrikson v. Udall, 350 F.2d 949, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4495 (9th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

350 F.2d 949 (Henrikson v. Udall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related