...substantial evidence. "The substantial-evidence standard does not allow a court to displace the [Agencies'] choice between two fairly conflicting views, even...different choice had the matter been before it de novo." Trimmer v. United States Dep't of 'Labor, 174F.3d 1098, 1102 (10th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks and...

...from the primary evidentiary facts we, as a reviewing court, may not "displace the ... [Secretary's] choice between two fairly conflicting views, even...different choice had the matter been before it de novo." Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 US 474,488,71 S.Ct. 456, 465, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). Thornton v....

...in its entirety furnishes, including the body of evidence opposed to the Board's view,' it may not 'displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting...different choice had the matter been before it de ncco? " Looking first to the respondent's contention that there is absolutely no evidence of anti-union...

...respect. Nor does it mean that even as to matters not requiring expertise a court may displace the 290 Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views,...justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been berfore it de novo. * * * See, also, NLRB v. Marcus Trucking Co., Inc.. 2 Cir., 286 F.2d 583, 592....

...furnish a calculus of value by which a reviewing court can assess evidence. * * * Nor does it mean that even as to matters not requiring expertise a court...different choice had the matter been before it de novo" (p. 313). The phrase "substantial evidence" has no well established meaning. It does mean more than...

...furnish a calculus of value by which a reviewing court can assess evidence. * * * Nor does it mean that even as to matters not requiring expertise a court...different choice had the matter been before it de novo" (p. 313). The phrase "substantial evidence" has no well established meaning. It does mean more than...

...the important purposes of the movement which eventuated in that enactment * * *. Congress has * * * made it clear that a reviewing court is not barred from setting aside an agency's decision when it cannot conscientiously find that the evidence supporting that decision...

...the important purposes of the movement which eventuated in that enactment * * *. Congress has * * * made it clear that a reviewing court is not barred from setting aside an agency's decision when it cannot conscientiously find that the evidence supporting that decision...

...Rives' dissenting opinion finds support in the record as a whole, the Board's order should be enforced "even though the court would justifiably have made...different choice had the matter been before it de novo." Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 US 474, 488. Per Cunam. 360 US MARSHALL v. UNITED STATES....

...Rives' dissenting opinion finds support in the record as a whole, the Board's order should be enforced "even though the court would justifiably have made...different choice had the matter been before it de novo." Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 US 474, 488. Per Curiam. 360 US MARSHALL v. UNITED STATES....