Henrikson v. Udall

Decision Date28 October 1965
Docket NumberNo. 19560.,19560.
Citation350 F.2d 949
PartiesCharles 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.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

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.

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Multiple Use, Inc. v. Morton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • 9 November 1972
    ...If on the record there is "substantial evidence to support the Secretary's decision, that decision must be affirmed". Henrikson v. Udall, 350 F.2d 949, 950 (9th Cir. 1965); Dredge Corporation v. Penny, 338 F.2d 456, 462 (9th Cir. 1964); White v. Udall, 404 F.2d 334, 335 (9th Cir. 1968). A c......
  • Coleman v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 21 June 1966
    ...should suffice for either. Cf. Mulkern v. Hammitt, supra, sand and gypsum; Adams v. United States, supra, sand and gold; Henrikson v. Udall (9 CCA 1965), 350 F.2d 949, 229 F.Supp. 510, sand and gravel. In addition, the applicant may be required to show, if challenged to do so, that the clai......
  • Converse v. Udall
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 13 January 1969
    ...the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (E) — whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Henrikson v. Udall, 9 Cir., 1965, 350 F.2d 949; Foster v. Seaton, 1959, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 253, 271 F.2d 836; Palmer v. Dredge Corp., 9 Cir., 1968, 398 F.2d 2 E. g., Lange......
  • Shell Oil Co. v. Kleppe
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • 17 January 1977
    ...(1971); Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); Henrikson v. Udall, 350 F.2d 949, 950 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 940, 86 S.Ct. 1457, 16 L.Ed.2d 538 III Mining laws require the discovery of a valuable mineral dep......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT