green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
24.6 score
“burden of going forward with evidence”
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries
burden of going forward with evidence
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ketchikan Drywall Services, Inc. v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
We do not overturn an agency’s determination of a civil penalty “unless it is either ‘unwarranted in law or unjustified in fact.’ ” Balice v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 203 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Bosma v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 754 F.2d 804, 810 (9th Cir.1984)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Wheeler v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.
(3×)
See, e.g., Butz v. Glover Livestock Comm’n, Co., 411 U.S. 182, 183-84 , 93 S.Ct. 1455 , 36 L.Ed.2d 142 (1973) (incorrect weighing of livestock violated, among other provisions, § 213(a)); Spencer Livestock Comm’n Co. v. Dept. of Agric., 841 F.2d 1451, 1454-55 (9th Cir.1988) (upholding a finding of a § 213(a) violation "where the evidence establishes a deceptive practice, whether or not it harmed consumers or competitors”); Peterman v. USDA, 770 F.2d 888, 890 (10th Cir.1985) ("bait-and-switch” was an "unfair and deceptive practice” under § 192(a)); Bosma v. USDA, 754 F.2d 804, 808-…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ulrich v. United States Department of Treasury
Assuming that the Comptroller had the burden of producing evidence of ability to pay, see Bosma v. USDA, 754 F.2d 804, 810 (9th Cir.1984), Ulrich does not dispute that there was sufficient evidence in the record for the Comptroller to weigh ability to pay as a mitigating factor.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Vito Balice, Individually and as the Agent of O. R. C. Company v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Opinion
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
We will not overturn a penalty unless it is either “unwarranted in law or unjustified in fact.” Bosma v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 754 F.2d 804, 810 (9th Cir.1984) (citing Butz v. Glover Livestock Comm’n Co., 411 U.S. 182, 185-88 , 93 S.Ct. 1455 , 36 L.Ed.2d 142 (1973)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniel Joseph ALDERMAN, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent
An initial factfinder's assessments of credibility deserve "special weight.” Bosma v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 754 F.2d 804, 808 (9th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Diehl v. Franklin
See Merritt v. United States, 960 F.2d 15, 18 (2d Cir.1992); Bosma v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 754 F.2d 804, 810 (9th Cir.1984) .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moore v. Madigan
Act of February 2, 1903, commonly known as the Cattle Contagious Diseases Act of 1903, section 3, as amended (21 U.S.C. 122). .... (b)(2) Adjudicatory proceedings under the regulations promulgated under the Animal Quarantine and Related Laws (21 U.S.C. 111 et seq.) for the suspension or revocation of accreditation of veterinarians (9 CFR Parts 160, 161). 3 Cf. Moore, 789 F.Supp. at 1486 (refusing to consider additional evidence) 4 Misidentification can easily occur if cattle owners bring their animals to the stockyard and either fail to indicate the state from which they arrive or provide fals…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moore v. Madigan
Moore cites Capital Produce Co. v. United States, 930 F.2d 1077, 1080-81 (4th Cir.1991) (substantial record evidence did not support a willfulness finding, which was a necessary element of a violation of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act), Ferguson v. USDA, 911 F.2d 1273, 1277-79 (8th Cir.1990) (precedent establishes that willfulness is relevant to sanction severity under 7 U.S.C. § 204 ), Hutto Stockyard, Inc. v. USDA, 903 F.2d 299, 304-05 (4th Cir.1990) (suspension disallowed because USDA failed to comply with either the notice or the willfulness requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 558 (c…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lee Morgan v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Frank Riciotti, Iii, Real Party in Interest
This would be a very different case if the Secretary had pled and proved that others were deterred by the rule, see 5 U.S.C. § 556 (d) (proponent has burden of producing evidence); Bosma v. USDA, 754 F.2d 804, 810 (9th Cir.1984), but on this record, we agree with Morgan that his failure to give general notice of his determination not to enforce the rule cannot be a basis for the maximum civil penalty- The AU found that Morgan “was unaware of the illegality of Rule 3 until this was pointed out to him by [Riciotti’s attorney],” in a letter dated June 6, 1989.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert D. Morris v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Stotler and Company S. Bruce Pattison Stephen Greenfield, Intervenors
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Agency findings which run counter to those of the AU “are given less weight than they would otherwise receive.” Saavedra v. Donovan, 700 F.2d 496, 498 (9th Cir.1983); Bosma, 754 F.2d at 808 (agency’s findings will be scrutinized more critically if they contradict those of the AU).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Judith A. Stanley v. Edgar Stanley, Robert Marcuccilli and Wayne Roe v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(2×)
Bosma, 754 F.2d at 810; Premex, 785 F.2d at 1409 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Air North America v. Department of Transportation
See Butz v. Glover Livestock Comm’n Co., 411 U.S. 182, 185-86 , 93 S.Ct. 1455, 1457-58 , 36 L.Ed.2d 142 (1973); Moog Industries v. FTC, 355 U.S. 411 , 78 S.Ct. 377 , 2 L.Ed.2d 370 (1958); American Power Co. v. SEC, 329 U.S. 90, 112, 118 , 67 S.Ct. 133, 145, 148 , 91 L.Ed. 103 (1946); Bosma v. Department of Agriculture, 754 F.2d 804, 810 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Air North America v. Department Of Transportation
See Butz v. Glover Livestock Comm'n Co., 411 U.S. 182, 185-86 , 93 S.Ct. 1455, 1457-58 , 36 L.Ed.2d 142 (1973); Moog Industries v. FTC, 355 U.S. 411 , 78 S.Ct. 377 , 2 L.Ed.2d 370 (1958); American Power Co. v. SEC, 329 U.S. 90, 112, 118 , 67 S.Ct. 133, 145, 148 , 91 L.Ed. 103 (1946); Bosma v. Department of Agriculture, 754 F.2d 804, 810 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffrey C. Ferguson v. United States Department of Agriculture
(2×)
Accord Spencer Livestock Comm’n v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 841 F.2d 1451, 1456 (9th Cir.1988) (court can overturn sanction where it is “unwarranted in law or unjustified in fact,” citing Glover Livestock); Bosma v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 754 F.2d 804, 810 (9th Cir.1984) (same); Cobb v. Yeutter, 889 F.2d 724, 730 (6th Cir.1989) (court reviews sanctions to determine whether a chosen penalty is an allowable judgment “under the law and facts,” citing Glover Livestock).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hutto Stockyard, Inc. John D. Hutto Charles L. Hutto v. United States Department of Agriculture
As the proponent of the penalty, USDA bears the burden of producing evidence that the penalty was reasonable. 5 U.S.C.A. § 556 (d) (West 1977); Bosma, 754 F.2d at 810.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Spencer Livestock Commission Company Mike Donaldson v. Department of Agriculture
Bosma v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 754 F.2d 804, 807 (9th Cir.1984); Corona Livestock Auction, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 607 F.2d 811 , 814 & n. 8 (9th Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blackfoot Livestock Commission, Co. v. Department of Agriculture, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Bosma v. United States Dept, of Agriculture, 754 F.2d 804, 807 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
DLS Precision Fab LLC v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
(2×)
See Bosma v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 754 F.2d 804 , 810 (9th Cir. 1984) (noting that administrative penalty will not be overturned unless it is either “unwarranted in law or unjustified in fact”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Martyn Merritt v. United States of America Federal Maritime Commission
In Bosma, the statute involved provided, in pertinent part, that "the Secretary shall consider ... the effect of the penalty on the person's ability to continue in business." 7 U.S.C. § 213 (b); see Bosma, 754 F.2d at 810 .
examined
Cited "see"
Premex, Incorporated, and Samuel N. Zack v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(3×)
See Bosma v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 754 F.2d 804, 810 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nelda A. Parker v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Autry R. Hand v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services
See, e.g., Bosma v. United States Department of Agriculture, 754 F.2d 804 , 807-08 (9th Cir. 1984); Moore v. Ross, 687 F.2d 604, 608-09 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1115 , 103 S.Ct. 750 , 74 L.Ed.2d 969 (1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joseph Franklin Love
v.
Harry Walters, in His Official Capacity as Administrator of the Veterans' Affairs of the United States Veterans' Administration the United States Veterans' Administration Ron Cook, Charles G. Crosslin, Jimmy Ingram and Jesse D. Beam, Individually and in Their Official Capacities as Employees of the United States Veterans' Administration
v.
Harry Walters, in His Official Capacity as Administrator of the Veterans' Affairs of the United States Veterans' Administration the United States Veterans' Administration Ron Cook, Charles G. Crosslin, Jimmy Ingram and Jesse D. Beam, Individually and in Their Official Capacities as Employees of the United States Veterans' Administration
84-2466.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Feb 21, 1985.
Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court (1)
Joseph Franklin LOVE, Appellant,
v.
Harry WALTERS, in his Official Capacity as Administrator of
the Veterans' Affairs of the United States Veterans'
Administration; the United States Veterans' Administration;
Ron Cook, Charles G. Crosslin, Jimmy Ingram and Jesse D.
Beam, Individually and in their Official Capacities as
Employees of the United States Veterans' Administration, Appellees.
No. 84-2466.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 22, 1985.
Decided Feb. 21, 1985.
Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
[*~804]1
Joseph Franklin Love appeals pro se from a final order entered in the District Court[1] for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissing his civil rights complaint. Appellant sought review of the administrative denial of his claim for veterans' benefits. The district court dismissed his complaint because judicial review of decisions of the Veterans' Administration is barred by 38 U.S.C. Sec. 211(a) (1982) and because appellant's complaint did not constitute the type of constitutional challenge to veterans' legislation subject to judicial review under Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 366-74, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 1165-69, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974).
[*~810]2
We have carefully reviewed the record and summarily affirm the order of the district court dismissing appellant's complaint with prejudice. 8th Cir.R. 12(a).
1
The Honorable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas