Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Henrikson v. Udall

350 F.2d 949

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1965-09-15
Topic
intellectual-property-and-technology

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Henrikson v. Udall. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
15 opinions
HENRIKSON v. UDALL,350 F.2d 949(9th Cir. 1965)
Charles H. HENRIKSON and Oliver Henrikson, Appellants, v. Stewart L.
UDALL, United States Secretary of the Interior, The United States of
America, and George Steed, District Ranger, United States Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, Appellees.
No. 19560.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
September 15, 1965.
Rehearing Denied October 28, 1965.
Page 950
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.
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.