Dickinson v. Zurko (1999)

See Furman v. United States, 720 F.2d 263, 264 (2d Cir.1983) ("There is no requirement in law that a federal appellate court's decision be accompanied by a written opinion."); United States v. Baynes, 548 F.2d 481, 482 (3d Cir.1977) (holding that an affirmance by judgment order without an opinion did not constitute a denial of due process of law); see also Fed.R.App.P. 36(a)(2) (outlining the procedure for entering a judgment "rendered without opinion"). 8 See, e.g., Dickins…

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 , 119 S.Ct. 1816 , 144 L.Ed.2d 143 , 50 USPQ2d 1930 (1999) (“Zurko III”).

See Zurko, 119 S.Ct. at 1823 (“A reviewing court reviews an agency’s reasoning to determine whether it is ‘arbitrary’ or ‘capricious,’ or, if bound up with a record-based factual conclusion, to determine whether it is supported by ‘substantial evidence.’ ”).

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 , 50 USPQ2d 1930 (1999) ("Zurko III").

“A finding is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept a particular ev- identiary record as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999)).

Cir. 2019) (quoting Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999)) (finding sub- stantial evidence for obviousness even where “the Board's analysis could have been more developed”).

The substantial evidence standard of review is “deferential,” Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 909 (9th Cir. 2018), and a “stricter” standard of review than “clearly erroneous,” see Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 156 (1999).

The applicable “substantial evidence standard . . . require[s] a court to ask whether a reasonable mind might accept a particular evidentiary record as ade- quate to support a conclusion.” Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999) (internal quotation marks and ci- tations omitted).

BONDI 11 399, the Supreme Court has made clear that a different standard of review applies when a court reviews agency findings of fact (“court/agency” review) than when a court reviews a court’s findings of fact (“court/court” review), see Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999).

The applicable “APA court/agency substantial evidence standard . . . require[s] a court to ask whether a reasonable mind might accept a particular evidentiary record as adequate to support a con- clusion.” Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999) (in- ternal quotation marks and citations omitted).

See, e.g., Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999) (“The APA requires meaningful review; and its enactment meant stricter judicial review of agency factfinding than Congress believed some courts had previously conducted.”); Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 234 (1991) (“Although some might say that this Court has not spoken with a uniformly clear voice on the issue of deference to a district judge’s determination of state law, a careful consideration of our c…

See Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 , 153, 119 S.Ct. 1816 , 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999) (comparing the 9 Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589, 593 (3d Cir. 2001) (“when the Appeals Council has denied review the district court may affirm, modify, or reverse the Commissioner’s decision, with or without a remand based on the record that was made before the ALJ (Sentence Four review).”).

See Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 , 153, 119 S.Ct. 1816 , 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999) (comparing the 7 Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589, 593 (3d Cir. 2001) (“when the Appeals Council has denied review the district court may affirm, modify, or reverse the Commissioner's decision, with or without a remand based on the record that was made before the ALJ (Sentence Four review).”).

See Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 , 153, 119 S.Ct. 1816 , 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999) (comparing the 8 Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589, 593 (3d Cir. 2001) (“when the Appeals Council has denied review the district court may affirm, modify, or reverse the Commissioner's decision, with or without a remand based on the record that was made before the ALJ (Sentence Four review).”) 9 L.R. 83.40.4; United States v. Claxton, 766 F.3d 280, 307 (3d Cir. 2014) (“parties . . . bear the re…

DAB’s finding that there existed ample time between full implementation of WVEIS and the passage of the relevant deadlines to gather cost information is supported by substantial evidence in the record, such that a reasonable mind might accept this finding. 10 See Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 , 119 S.Ct. 1816 , 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999) (“This Court has described the APA court/agency ‘substantial evidence’ standard as requiring a court to ask whether a ‘reasonable mind …

See 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2) (“The reviewing court shall ... hold unlawful and set aside agency actions, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law[.]”); see also Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 165 , 119 S.Ct. 1816 , 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999) (“Congress has set forth the appropriate standard [of review] in the APA.”).

As stated above, when a patent applicant seeks “direct review [of a Board decision] in federal district court” pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145 , the applicant may “present to the court evidence that the applicant did not present to the PTO.” Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 , 164, 119 S.Ct. 1816 , 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999) (citation omitted).

See Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 155 , 119 S.Ct. 1816 , 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999) (“The APA was meant to bring uniformity to a field full of variation and diversity.”).

See Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162-63 , 119 S.Ct. 1816 , 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999) (“we have failed to uncover a single instance in which a reviewing court conceded that use of one standard rather than the other would in fact have produced a different outcome”); CAE, 267 F.3d at 676 and n. 10.

Substantial evidence “is no more than a recitation of the application of the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard to factual findings.” Maryland People’s Counsel v. FERC, 761 F.2d 768 , 774 (D.C.Cir.1985) (Scalia, J.); see also Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 164 , 119 S.Ct. 1816 , 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999) (“A reviewing court reviews an agency’s reasoning to determine whether it is ‘arbitrary’ or ‘capricious,’ or, if bound up with a record-based factual conclusion, to determi…

See Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 152 , 119 S.Ct. 1816 , 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999) (“The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) sets forth standards governing judicial review of findings of fact made by federal administrative agencies.”) Background On December 1, 1994, Kathleen Lyons submitted a memorandum to the Assistant Chief of Nursing Services, Marianne Taylor, complaining of Pathak’s conduct toward her during a trip to Chicago in' June 1994 for a research conference in th…

Corp. v. Dep’t of Def., 538 F. Supp. 3d at 188 (quoting Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 164 (1999)).

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153, 162-63 (1999).

The Board’s decision will comply with the substantial evidence standard so long as a “‘reasonable mind might accept’ [the] particular evidentiary record as ‘adequate to support [the contested] conclusion.’” Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).

Brault, 683 F.3d at 448 (quoting Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999)).

It is a “very deferential standard of review—even more so than the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard.” Brault, 683 F.3d at 448 (citing Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999)).

It is a “very deferential standard of review—even more so than the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard.” Brault, 683 F.3d at 448 (citing Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999)).

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153, 162-63 (1999).

“Substantial evidence 8 is relevant evidence which, considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept 9 as adequate to support a conclusion.” Thomas v. Barnhart (Thomas), 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 10 2002) (quoting Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995)); 11 see also Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999) (comparing the substantial-evidence 12 standard to the deferential clearly-erroneous standard). “[T]he thres…

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153, 162-63 (1999) (cited with approval in Biestek, 587 U.S. at 103 ).

It is a “very deferential standard of review—even more so than the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard.” Brault, 683 F.3d at 448 (citing Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999)).

“Substantial evidence 1 is relevant evidence which, considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept 2 as adequate to support a conclusion.” Thomas v. Barnhart (Thomas), 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 3 2002) (quoting Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995)); 4 see also Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999) (comparing the substantial-evidence 5 standard to the deferential clearly-erroneous standard). “[T]he threshol…

“Substantial evidence 11 is relevant evidence which, considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept 12 as adequate to support a conclusion.” Thomas v. Barnhart (Thomas), 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 13 2002) (quoting Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995)); 14 see also Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999) (comparing the substantial-evidence 15 standard to the deferential clearly-erroneous standard). “[T]he thr…

The court reviews the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and “must uphold such findings if ‘a reasonable mind might accept this particular evidentiary record as adequate to support the agency’s conclusion.’” Grand Canyon Univ., 121 F.4th at 723 (brackets omitted) (quoting Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999)).

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153, 162-63 (1999) (cited with approval in Biestek, 587 U.S. at 103 ).

Further, because “[t]he APA requires meaningful review,” the Supreme Court has “stressed the importance of not simply rubber-stamping agency factfinding.” Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999) (citing Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 490 (1951)).

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153, 162-63 (1999) (cited with approval in Biestek, 587 U.S. at 103 ).

The Supreme Court "has stressed the importance of not simply rubber-stamping agency factfinding" and noted that "[t]he APA [Administrative Procedures Act] requires meaningful review; and its enactment meant stricter judicial review of agency factfinding than Congress believed some courts had previously conducted." Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999).

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153, 162-63 (1999) (cited with approval in Biestek, 587 U.S. at 103 ).

“Substantial evidence 6 is relevant evidence which, considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept 7 as adequate to support a conclusion.” Thomas v. Barnhart (Thomas), 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 8 2002) (quoting Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995)); 9 see also Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999) (comparing the substantial-evidence 10 standard to the deferential clearly-erroneous standard). “[T]he thresho…

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153, 162-63 (1999) (cited with approval in Biestek, 587 U.S. at 103 ).

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153, 162-63 (1999) (cited with approval in Biestek, 587 U.S. at 103 ).

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153, 162-63 (1999) (cited with approval in Biestek, 587 U.S. at 103 ).

“Substantial evidence 8 is relevant evidence which, considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept 9 as adequate to support a conclusion.” Thomas v. Barnhart (Thomas), 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 10 2002) (quoting Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995)); 11 see also Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999) (comparing the substantial-evidence 12 standard to the deferential clearly-erroneous standard). “[T]he thres…

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153, 162-63 (1999) (cited with approval in Biestek, 587 U.S. at 103 ).

Still, judicial review of an agency decision is not "toothless"—the "APA requires meaningful review." Orchard Hill, 893 F.3d at 1024 (quoting Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999)).

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153, 162-63 (1999) (cited with approval in Biestek, 587 U.S. at 103 ).

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153, 162-63 (1999) (cited with approval in Biestek, 587 U.S. at 103).

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 , 152-53 (1999). 18 The District Court’s review is limited.

Cir. 2019) (quoting Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 , 162 (1999) and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 870 F.3d. 1320, 1331 (Fed.