finding that a reviewing court gives "due regard" to the ability of the factfinder who heard the witnesses to judge credibility
How later courts described this case
- finding that a reviewing court gives "due regard" to the ability of the factfinder who heard the witnesses to judge credibility
- stating that courts should afford due deference "to the agency's expertise where such expertise is a pertinent factor"
- holding that scope of review of administrative decision “is the same as that [for] an appeal in any nonjury case”
- stating that courts give "due regard [ ] to the agency's expertise where such expertise is a pertinent factor"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Proctor, J.
(concurring). I am the only member of the present court who joined in the majority opinion in Russo v. United States Trucking Corp., 26 N. J. 430 (1958). Upon reconsideration of Russo, I am convinced that my position in that case was erroneous. I therefore subscribe fully to that part of the opinion in the present case which overrules the Russo doctrine, as well as the balance of the opinion.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Prancis, Proctor, Hall, Schettxno and Haneman —7.
For reversal—Hone.