Nelson v. Marshall

W.D. Washington

Nelson v. Marshall

56 F.2d 654, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2005

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington

DecidedApril 20, 1931

DocketNo. 747

StatusPublished

This text of 56 F.2d 654 (Nelson v. Marshall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nelson v. Marshall, 56 F.2d 654, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2005 (W.D. Wash. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

BOURQUIN, District Judge.

Proceeding in statutory review of the deputy commissioner’s compensation order. The longshoreman’s complaint alleges the order is “against the law and the evidence,” and “that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding that plaintiff had recovered.” The settled law is that, in review of orders or judgments of a special tribunal which this deputy is, whoever attacks them in respect to the sufficiency of the evidence must make manifest that before the tribunal was not substantial evidence legally sufficient to sustain his determination. In mere conflicts, the tribunal’s decision is conclusive on the court reviewing. Here practically all the evidence and sufficient thereof accords with the order attacked, the longshoreman fails to sustain the burden of proof as aforesaid, and the proceeding is dismissed.

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

BOURQUIN, District Judge.

Proceeding in statutory review of the deputy commissioner’s compensation order. The longshoreman’s complaint alleges the order is “against the law and the evidence,” and “that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding that plaintiff had recovered.” The settled law is that, in review of orders or judgments of a special tribunal which this deputy is, whoever attacks them in respect to the sufficiency of the evidence must make manifest that before the tribunal was not substantial evidence legally sufficient to sustain his determination. In mere conflicts, the tribunal’s decision is conclusive on the court reviewing. Here practically all the evidence and sufficient thereof accords with the order attacked, the longshoreman fails to sustain the burden of proof as aforesaid, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F.2d 654, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-marshall-wawd-1931.