170
Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting
Kindelmann v. Morsbach, 25 C. C. P. A. 1344, 1349, 97
F. 2d 796, 799-800 (1938)
King v. Young, 26 C. C. P. A. 762, 771, 100 F. 2d 663, 670
(1938)
Meuer v. Schellenger, 26 C. C. P. A. 1430, 1434, 104 F. 2d
949, 952 (1939)
McBride v. Teeple, 27 C. C. P. A. 961, 972, 109 F. 2d 789,
797, cert. denied, 311 U. S. 649 (1940)
Vickery v. Barnhart, 28 C. C. P. A. 979, 982, 118 F. 2d 578,
581 (1941)
Shumaker v. Paulson, 30 C. C. P. A. 1136, 1138, 136 F. 2d
686, 688 (1943)
Paulson v. Hyland, 30 C. C. P. A. 1150, 1152, 136 F. 2d 695,
697 (1943)
Dreyer v. Haffcke, 30 C. C. P. A. 1278, 1280, 137 F. 2d 116,
117 (1943)
Cases Referring to Neither Technical Complexity/Agency Expertise nor Agreement Within the Agency
In re Schmidt, 26 C. C. P. A. 773, 777, 100 F. 2d 673, 676
(1938)
Hamer v. White, 31 C. C. P. A. 1186, 1189, 143 F. 2d 987,
990 (1944)
Kenyon v. Platt, 33 C. C. P. A. 748, 752, 152 F. 2d 1006,
1009 (1946)
Beall v. Ormsby, 33 C. C. P. A. 959, 967, 154 F. 2d 663,
668 (1946)
Chief Justice Rehnquist, with whom Justice Kennedy and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.
The issue in this case is whether, at the time of the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA or Act) over 50 years ago, judicial review of factfinding by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) under the "clearly erroneous" standard was an "additional requiremen[t] . . . recognized by law." 5 U. S. C. § 559. It is undisputed that, until today's decision,
Page: Index Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007