Legal Definitions - Substantial evidence

Substantial evidence is a legal standard that an appeals court uses when reviewing a decision made by a lower court or administrative agency. It means there is enough credible and relevant evidence in the record that a reasonable person could have concluded what the lower court or agency did. This standard does not require an overwhelming amount of proof, nor does it mean the appeals court would have reached the exact same conclusion if it had heard the case initially. Instead, it asks whether the lower court's or agency's findings were supported by a reasonable amount of evidence presented during the original proceedings. This approach respects the role of the trial court or agency, which directly heard witnesses and examined evidence, in making factual determinations.

Here are some examples illustrating how the "substantial evidence" standard applies:

• Government Agency Decision: Imagine a local zoning board denies a developer's application to build a new apartment complex, citing concerns about increased traffic congestion and strain on public utilities. The board's decision is based on traffic studies, expert testimony from city planners, and public comments from residents. The developer appeals this denial.

  An appellate court reviewing the zoning board's decision would apply the "substantial evidence" standard. The court would not re-evaluate the traffic data or decide if it personally believes the apartment complex is a good idea. Instead, it would examine the record to see if the zoning board presented enough credible traffic studies, expert opinions, and other information to reasonably conclude that the permit should be denied due to the identified concerns. If there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the board's findings, the appeals court would uphold the denial, even if there was also some evidence supporting the developer's position.

• Workers' Compensation Claim: A factory worker files a claim for workers' compensation benefits after developing carpal tunnel syndrome, alleging it was caused by repetitive tasks at work. The Workers' Compensation Board reviews medical reports from the worker's doctor and the company's doctor, ergonomic assessments of the workstation, and the worker's testimony. The Board concludes that while the worker has carpal tunnel, there isn't enough evidence to definitively link it to their specific job duties, and denies the claim. The worker appeals this decision.

  An appellate court reviewing the Board's decision would apply the "substantial evidence" standard. They would look at the medical reports, ergonomic studies, and testimonies presented to the Board. If the Board's conclusion that the injury was not directly work-related is supported by credible medical opinions or other evidence in the record – for example, if the company's doctor provided a reasonable alternative explanation for the condition – the appellate court would likely affirm the Board's denial because there was "substantial evidence" for their finding, even if other evidence might have suggested a different outcome.

• Civil Lawsuit Verdict: A small business sues a former employee for violating a non-compete agreement, claiming the employee immediately started a competing business using confidential client lists. After a trial, the jury finds in favor of the small business, awarding damages, based on testimony from current clients who were contacted by the former employee, emails showing the employee downloaded client data, and the non-compete contract itself. The former employee appeals the judgment.

  The appellate court would review the trial court's decision to see if there was "substantial evidence" to support the jury's finding that the employee breached the non-compete agreement and caused damages. They would examine the trial record – the contract, the client testimony, the email evidence, and any other relevant exhibits. If these pieces of evidence, taken together, provide a reasonable basis for the jury's conclusion, the appellate court would uphold the verdict. The appellate court would not retry the case or substitute its own judgment for the jury's factual findings, as long as those findings were reasonably supported by the evidence presented at trial.