What is the standard for substantial evidence in reviewing factual determinations?

What is the standard for substantial evidence in reviewing factual determinations?

• A. A standard requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
• B. Evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion.
• C. Any evidence, even if not credible.
• D. No evidence is required.

Answer: (B)

Substantial evidence is the standard used when a court reviews an agency’s factual determinations. It means the record must contain evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the agency’s conclusion. This level of review sits between mere speculation and a full reweighing of the evidence, and it reflects deference to the agency’s role in fact-finding. The idea is that if the record provides enough credible evidence for a reasonable mind to agree with the finding, the decision stands, even if other parts of the record could support a different result. It’s not the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, and it isn’t “any evidence,” since the evidence must be credible and adequate on the record. Also, it isn’t “no evidence” required—the court must find there is some adequate evidence on the record to support the conclusion. So the statement describing evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion best captures this standard.

Substantial evidence is the standard used when a court reviews an agency’s factual determinations. It means the record must contain evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the agency’s conclusion. This level of review sits between mere speculation and a full reweighing of the evidence, and it reflects deference to the agency’s role in fact-finding.

The idea is that if the record provides enough credible evidence for a reasonable mind to agree with the finding, the decision stands, even if other parts of the record could support a different result. It’s not the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, and it isn’t “any evidence,” since the evidence must be credible and adequate on the record. Also, it isn’t “no evidence” required—the court must find there is some adequate evidence on the record to support the conclusion.

So the statement describing evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion best captures this standard.