Consolidated Bearings Co. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge.
I. Standard of Review
The Court will uphold the agency’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) (2000). 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
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Consolidated Bearings Company, Plaintiff-Cross v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Consolidated Bearings Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2001
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Consolidated Bearings Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Parkdale International v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2006
- Dental EZ, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2007
- Dillinger France S.A. v. United StatesPublic version: 08/15/2023.United States Court of International Trade · 2023