Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Hammer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the board’s order was not based on substantial reason when it did not explain inconsistent factual findings
• holding that, for us to conduct meaningful review of the board’s opinion for substantial evidence, the board must explain its conclusions in a manner that is supported by substantial reason
• reversing and remanding board order that did not include an explanation of seemingly inconsistent factual findings
• board must provide a “reasoned opinion” for this court to review for substantial evidence
• board has broad discretion to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).