Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., and Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States, and Goss Graphics Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[T]he possi- bility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the ev- idence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.”
• “The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence Court No. 19-00044 Page 10 does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)
• “‘[T]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.’” (quoting Consolidated Edison, Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 Court No. 20-00017 Page 13 (1938))
• “‘[T]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the Court No. 20-00016 Page 13 evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.’” (quoting Consolidated Edison, Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).