Mitsubishi Materials Corp. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, because certain Commissioners made a threat of injury determination, remand instructions pertaining only to Commission’s material injury finding did not apply to their determination
• observing that those who “were not members of the Commission at the time of the original determination... properly reviewed the case on remand de novo”
• upholding Commis sion’s finding that “domestic producers were vulnerable to future imports because they had been deprived of the opportunity to expand capacity due to loss of market share in the Southern California market”
• “the reviewing court may not ‘even as to matters not requiring expertise * * * displace the [Commission’s] choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).