diybrazerzkidai.blogg.se

#Flotato trial trial#

In its first opinion, remanding the issue of reparations to the Commission, the Court of Appeals said, "But in reviewing the evidence, we are confined to a much more restricted standard, as the Administrative Procedure Act, § 1 et seq., 5 U.S.C.A.These policies would be damaged by the standard of review articulated by the court below. By giving the agency discretionary power to fashion remedies, Congress places a premium upon agency expertise, and, for the sake of uniformity, it is usually better to minimize the opportunity for reviewing courts to substitute their discretion for that of the agency. In this area agency determinations frequently rest upon a complex and hard-to-review mix of considerations. These policies are particularly important when a court is asked to review an agency's fashioning of discretionary relief. It frees the reviewing courts of the time-consuming and difficult task of weighing the evidence, it gives proper respect to the expertise of the administrative tribunal and it helps promote the uniform application of the statute. Congress was very deliberate in adopting this standard of review.Consolo petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review that decision, which we granted. the Commission abused the discretion granted it under Section 22 of the Shipping Act. The Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the reparation award, concluding that "n view of the substantial evidence showing that it would be inequitable to assess damages against Flota in favor of Consolo. Again Consolo maintained that the award was too small and Flota argued that it should be set aside in part or in whole.

Again, both Flota and Consolo appealed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, each intervened in the appeal of the other, and the two appeals were consolidated.

" On remand the Federal Maritime Commission concluded that it was not inequitable to require Flota to pay Consolo reparations, although it did reduce the amount of the award.

It affirmed the Board's finding that Flota had violated the Shipping Act but remanded to the Board the issue of reparations so that it could "consider whether, under all the circumstances, it is inequitable to force Flota to pay reparations.

The Court of Appeals held that it had jurisdiction to consider these appeals.

This standard is not consistent with that provided by the Administrative Procedure Act. In effect, the standard of review applied and articulated by the Court of Appeals in this case was that if "substantial evidence" or "the substantial evidence" supports a conclusion contrary to that reached by the Commission, then the Commission must be reversed. It then concluded that the Commission abused its discretion in ordering reparations because "of the substantial evidence showing that would be inequitable." Id., at 352, 342 F.2d, at 931.

The Court of Appeals rejected the Commission's finding that it would not be inequitable to award Consolo reparations because it felt this finding "ignores.

105, 106 Keele Hair Scalp Specialists, Inc. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corp., 316 U.S. This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.

Columbian Enameling Stamping Co., 306 U.S.

#Flotato trial trial#

"t 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." Labor Board v. We have defined "substantial evidence" as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Consolidated Edison Co. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 91 U.S.App.D.C. § 1009 (e) (1964 ed.)) gives a reviewing court authority to "set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion. Section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act ( 60 Stat.