C.F.R. » Title 7 » PART 11—NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION › Subpart A—National Appeals Division Rules of Procedures

7 C.F.R. § 11.13

Judicial review

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A final determination of the Division shall be reviewable and enforceable by any United States District Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.

(b) An appellant may not seek judicial review of any agency adverse decision appealable under this part without receiving a final determination from the Division pursuant to the procedures of this part.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Bartlett v. United States Dep't of Agric., 716 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bartlett v. United States Dep't of Agric., 716 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “§ 6999 ; 7 C.F.R. § 11.13 (a). However, not all county committee decisions are eligible for administrative review.”
Branstad v. Veneman, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Iowa 2001). · cites it 4× “First, the court concludes that the denial of appeal based on “extenuating circumstances” was a reviewable “final determination,” pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 11.13 (a) (“A final determination of the Division shall be reviewable and enforceable by any United States District Court of…”
Branstad v. Veneman, 212 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Iowa 2002). · cites it 4× “The court concludes that the denial of appeal regarding Tract # 1475 based on “extenuating circumstances” was a reviewable “final determination,” pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 11.13 (a) (“A final determination of the Division shall be reviewable and enforceable by any United States…”
Midland Farms, LLC v. United States Dep't of Agric., 35 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (D.S.D. 2014). · cites it 2× “Midland thereafter filed its Complaint asserting that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the APA, the judicial review section of regulations applicable to the USDA’s National Appeals Division codified at 7 C.F.R. § 11.13 , 4 the FCIA, and federal question jurisdiction under…”
Mahon v. United States Dep't of Agric., 485 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007). “See also 7 C.F.R § 11.13(b) (2002). Thus, we must determine whether Paul Mahon did indeed exhaust his administrative remedies.”
Bachman Sunny Hill Fruit Farms v. Producers Agric. Ins. Co., 57 F.4th 536 (6th Cir. 2023). “766(b)(6)(iv), and a district court can review and enforce those final determinations, see 7 C.F.R. § 11.13 (a). Or a federal court could determine, when presented with a timely motion to vacate under § 10(a)(4) of the FAA, that an arbitration award must be vacated because the…”
Austin v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 776 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “See 7 C.F.R. § 11.13 . This court lacks jurisdiction to hear attempts to appeal “adverse decisions” issued by USDA-RD, RHS.”
Cottrell v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 559 (Fed. Cl. 2006). · cites it 2× “Moreover, 7 C.F.R. § 11.13 (b) (1997) expressly provides that “[a]n appellant may not seek judicial review of any agency adverse decision appealable under this part without receiving a final determination from the Divi-sion_” (Emphases added).”
Adkins v. Vilsack, 252 F. Supp. 3d 588 (N.D. Tex. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 6999 , 7 C.F.R. § 11.13 , and Chapter 7 of Title 5 of the United States Code, Plaintiffs seek judicial review of a final decision of the National Appeals Division (“NAD”), a division of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”).”
Enter. Nat'l Bank v. Vilsack, 568 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “§ 6999 ; see also 7 C.F.R. § 11.13 (tracking statute). 6 . Indeed, the hearing officer may not be empowered to order any action.”
Allied Home Mortg. Capital Corp. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 769 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “7 C.F.R. § 11.13 . In plaintiffs case, the Lender’s Agreement, signed by Allied, and the Loan Note Guarantee both, specifically include references to 7 C.”
Ausmus v. Perdue, 289 F. Supp. 3d 1227 (D. Colo. 2017). · cites it 3× “13 , and Chapter 7 of Title 5 of the United States Code, Plaintiffs seek judicial review of a final decision of the National Appeals Division ("NAD"), a division of the United States Department of Agriculture. ECF No. 1 at 3. After considering the arguments, applicable law, and…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— 7 C.F.R. § 11.13(b) — 1 case
Mahon v. United States Dep't of Agric., 485 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007). “See also 7 C.F.R § 11.13(b) (2002). Thus, we must determine whether Paul Mahon did indeed exhaust his administrative remedies.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.