Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Charles H. Henrikson and Oliver Henrikson, Appellants, v. Stewart L. Udall, United States Secretary of the Interior,the United Statesof America, and George Steed,district Ranger, United Statesdepartment Ofagricultureforest Service, Appellees
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. - 350 F.2d 949
Sept. 15, 1965, Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 1965
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.