Legal Opinion

Luoyang Bearing Factory v. United States

United States Court of International Trade

Decided October 27, 2003No. Consol. 99-12-00743PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge.

I. Standard of Review

The Court will uphold Commerce’s rede-termination pursuant to the Court’s remand unless it is “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(l)(B)(i) (1994). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  3. Consolo v. Federal Maritime CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Luoyang Bearing Factory v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2002
  5. Hoogovens Staal BV v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1998

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mittal Steel Galati S.A. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2007
  2. Royal Thai Government v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2006
  3. Luoyang Bearing Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2004
  4. Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2003
  5. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API