Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB
United States Supreme Court case
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that a court will defer to a federal agency's findings of fact if supported by "substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole." Universal Camera added another qualification to the substantial evidence test laid down in Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB. The evidence supporting the agency's conclusion must be substantial in consideration of the record as a whole, even including the evidence that is not consistent with the agency's conclusion.
Background
Universal Camera Corp. fired an employee who testified under the Wagner Act. The National Labor Relations Board ordered Universal Camera Corp. to reinstate the employee with back pay and to cease and desist terminating employees for this reason. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the order, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB” is united States Supreme Court case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Universal, Camera and Corp, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “united States Supreme Court case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7893896. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1951.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB primary sources, Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB archive and Universal research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.