Topic: may offer any relevant evidence available to support his ca… · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #11796

8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 32 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from E. R. Redmond D/B/A Arcola Food Market v. United States of America and United States Department of Agriculture.

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 E. R. Redmond D/B/A Arcola Food Market v. United States of America and United States Department of Agriculture Anchor
ca5 · 1975
green “may offer any relevant evidence available to support his case, whether or not it has been previously submitted to the agency.” 5
2 James T. Cross v. United States
ca4 · 1975
green “although the validity of the underlying violation is reviewed by trial de novo, 'judicial review of the agency's choice of penalty is focused on whether the fns abused its discretion.” 4
3 Leonard Traficanti, D/B/A Lt's Gas/snaks v. United States
ca4 · 2000
green “store owners cannot simply attest to having effective antifraud programs; rather, they must prove it.” 4
4 Idias v. United States
ca4 · 2004
green “a store that is caught trafficking in food stamps even one time must be permanently disqualified from snap, unless the secretary of agriculture determines that the store had in place an effective anti-trafficking policy.” 4
5 Castillo v. United States
ctd · 1997
green “all four of these criteria must be satisfied by substantial evidence in order to impose a cmp.” 4
6 Kim v. United States
ca9 · 1997
green “in seeking to disprove the violations, the retailer is not limited to the factual record before the agency, but may rely on other evidence as well.” 4
7 Ahmed v. United States
nywd · 1999
green “the arbitrary and capricious standard asks 'whether the determination is unwarranted in law or without justification in fact.” 4
8 Idias v. United States
ca4 · 2004
green “permanent disqualification is almost always the appropriate sanction where a retailer is caught trafficking in snap benefits.” 3

A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check