wrongly believing — and correcting himself — that he had found the “case dreamed of by law school professors” where the agency’s findings, though “clearly erroneous,” were “nevertheless” supported by “substantial evidence”
How later courts described this case
- wrongly believing — and correcting himself — that he had found the “case dreamed of by law school professors” where the agency’s findings, though “clearly erroneous,” were “nevertheless” supported by “substantial evidence”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1147 On Petition for Rehearing
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of petitioner’s petition for rehearing, it is
Ordered by the Court that petitioner’s aforesaid petition is denied.
Separate statement of Circuit Judge MacKINNON as to why he voted against rehearing:
Judge MacKinnon would note that the petitioner misreads the opinion of the Court in this case, as the Court certainly does not hold that J-H Electric as an individual contractor could refuse to be bound for reasons peculiar to itself alone. Although J-H Electric is sometimes spoken of individually, it is clear from the opinion as a whole that all the Weld County contractors are in the same position. The Board found that for reasons derived from the circumstances as they involved the Weld County contractors as a group, J-H Electric could refuse to be bound by the contract in question. The Court simply affirmed the Board on this point.