What constitutes “substantial evidence”?
“Substantial evidence” is legal jargon for sufficient, often non-hearsay evidence, upon which a judge or jury can reach a verdict and which a reviewing court (appellate judges often assisted by their attorney assistants) can reach a conclusion that can be justified or may seem just – that is, not unsupported by any evidence, mere conjecture or off the wall. It used to be called the “shock the conscience” standard of review in some contexts, but, in many cases where hearsay evidence and conjencture is admissible – such as in administrative proceedings, for instance, it is the reviewing court’s way of seeing that the conclusion has some solid evidentiary backing and is not entirely based on ill will and hot air – with that said, substantial evidence varies in the eyes of the reviewers, and is often not a heavy burden – but it does allow a court to reverse an unsupported decision, often to send it back (remand) it to the original trier of fact for further review consistent with some commo
