C.F.R. » Title 7 » PART 12—HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND CONSERVATION AND WETLAND CONSERVATION › Subpart A—General Provisions

7 C.F.R. § 12.12

Appeals

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

Any person who has been or who would be denied program benefits in accordance with § 12.4 as the result of any determination made in accordance with the provisions of this part may obtain a review of such determination in accordance with the administrative appeals procedures of the agency which rendered such determination. Agency appeal procedures are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: FSA, part 780 of this title; NRCS, part 614 of this title; Rural Utilities Service, part 1900, subpart B of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1991–2006 · leading case: Branstad v. Glickman, 118 F. Supp. 2d 925 (N.D. Iowa 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Branstad v. Glickman, 118 F. Supp. 2d 925 (N.D. Iowa 2000). “30 (c)(4); 7 C.F.R. § 12.12 . Thus, the conclusion in the “final” agency determination of July 17, 2000, that the 1987 and 1991 wetland determinations were unappealable was, at least colorably, arbitrary and capricious.”
B & D Land & Livestock Co. v. Veneman, 332 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (N.D. Iowa 2004). “§ 3822 (a)(4) and 7 C.F.R. § 12.12 entitle a person affected by the certification of a wetland to review of that wetland determination.”
Bruhn v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 749 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “Subsequently, plaintiffs sought a county-level FSA review of the NRC S’s non-compliance finding pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 12.12 (2004), and 7 C.F.R. § 780.”
Horn Farms, Inc. v. Veneman, 319 F. Supp. 2d 902 (N.D. Ind. 2004). · cites it 2× “6 (c)(9); 7 C.F.R. § 12.12 ; 7 C.F.R. *911 § 614.101(a)(2); and 7 C.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Agric. Stabilization & Conservation Serv., 941 F.2d 667 (8th Cir. 1991). “See also 7 C.F.R. § 12.12 (1991); Hamilton, Legal Issues in Enforcing Federal Soil Conservation Programs: An Introduction and Preliminary Review, 23 U.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Agric. Stabilization & Conservation Serv., 955 F.2d 1199 (8th Cir. 1992). “See also 7 C.F.R. § 12.12 (1991); Hamilton, Legal Issues in Enforcing Federal Soil Conservation Programs: An Introduction and Preliminary Review, 23 U.”
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.