Legal Opinion

Timken Company v. United States

United States Court of International Trade

Decided February 25, 2004No. Slip Op. 04-17. Court No. 00-08-00386PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge.

I. Standard of Review

The Court will uphold the United States International Trade Commission’s (“ITC” or “Commission”) redetermination 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…

2Cases cited13 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. Allentown MacK Sales & Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  5. Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1988

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Awp Industries, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2011
  2. Wabtec Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API