TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Henrikson v. Udall

Charles H. Henrikson and Oliver Henrikson v. Stewart L. Udall, United States Secretary of the Interior, the United Statesof America, and George Steed, District Ranger, United States Department Ofagriculture Forest Service

Henrikson v. Udall, 350 F.2d 949 (9th Cir. 1965)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 28, 1965
Docket
No. 19560_1
Citations
350 F.2d 949

Opinion

350 F.2d 949

Charles H. HENRIKSON and Oliver Henrikson, Appellants, v. Stewart L. UDALL, United States Secretary of the Interior, The United Statesof America, and George Steed, District Ranger, United States Department ofAgriculture Forest Service, Appellees.

No. 19560.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 15, 1965, Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 1965.

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.

1

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.

2

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).

3

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.

4

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is 5

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1966: 11971: 11980: 119662026peak 1966 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Baker v. United States613 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1980)
  2. Converse v. Udall262 F. Supp. 583 (D. Or. 1966)
  3. Moseley v. Hickel442 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1971)

Most recent

  1. Baker v. United States613 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1980)
  2. Moseley v. Hickel442 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1971)
  3. Converse v. Udall262 F. Supp. 583 (D. Or. 1966)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474 (1951) 7,362
Foster v. Seaton, 271 F.2d 836 (D.C. Cir. 1959) 52
Henrikson v. Udall, 229 F. Supp. 510 (N.D. Cal. 1964) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list