C.F.R. » Title 7 » PART 2—DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND GENERAL OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT › Subpart D—Delegations of Authority to Other General Officers and Agency Heads

7 C.F.R. § 2.35

Judicial Officer

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

(a) Pursuant to the Act of April 4, 1940, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450c-450g), and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 (5 U.S.C. app.), the Secretary of Agriculture makes the following delegations of authority to the Judicial Officer. The Judicial Officer is authorized to:

(1) Act as final deciding officer in adjudicatory proceedings subject to 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557;

(2) Act as final deciding officer in adjudicatory proceedings which are or may be subject to the “Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary Under Various Statutes” set forth in part 1, subpart H, of this title;

(3) Act as final deciding officer in adjudicatory proceedings which are or may be subject to the “Rules of Practice Governing Cease and Desist Proceedings Under Section 2 of the Capper-Volstead Act” set forth in part 1, subpart I, of this title;

(4) Act as final deciding officer in adjudicatory proceedings subject to the “Procedures Related to Administrative Hearings Under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986” set forth in part 1, subpart L, of this title;

(5) Act as final deciding officer in adjudicatory proceedings subject to the “Rules of Practice Governing Adjudication of Sourcing Area Applications and Formal Review of Sourcing Areas Pursuant to the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 620, et seq.)” set forth in part 1, subpart M, of this title;

(6) Act as final deciding officer in rate proceedings under the Packers and Stockyards Act, as amended and supplemented (7 U.S.C. 181-229);

(7) Act as final deciding officer in reparation proceedings under statutes administered by the United States Department of Agriculture;

(8) Act as final deciding officer in appeals under section 63 of the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2443), and in reexamination proceedings under section 91 of the Plant Variety Protection Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2501);

(9) Act as final deciding officer in adjudicatory proceedings under section 359i of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1359ii);

(10) Issue rules of practice applicable to proceedings conducted under section 359i of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1359ii);

(11) Act as final deciding officer in adjudicatory proceedings subject to the “Rules of Practice Governing Proceedings on Petitions To Modify or To Be Exempted From Marketing Orders” set forth in sections 900.50 through 900.71 of this title;

(12) Act as final deciding officer in adjudicatory proceedings subject to the “Rules of Practice Governing Proceedings on Petitions to Modify or To Be Exempted from Research, Promotion, and Information Programs” set forth in part 1200, subpart B, of this title; and

(13) Act as final deciding officer in adjudicatory proceedings subject to “Appeals of Quality Control (‘QC’) Claims” set forth in part 283 of this title.

(b) The delegation of authority from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Judicial Officer in paragraph (a) of this section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Judicial Officer to perform any functions, in addition to those identified in the Act of April 4, 1940, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450c-450g), which may be assigned by the Secretary of Agriculture to the Judicial Officer.

(c) As used in this section, the term Judicial Officer shall mean any person or persons so designated by the Secretary of Agriculture.

[68 FR 27443, May 20, 2003, as amended at 75 FR 43380, July 23, 2010]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Knapp v. United States Dep't of Agric., 796 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Knapp v. United States Dep't of Agric., 796 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “See 7 C.F.R. § 2.35 (a); In re Knapp, AWA Docket No.”
John J. Conforti, Doing Bus. as C & C Produce v. United States, 74 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 1996). “7 C.F.R. § 2.35 (1993). Conforti petitioned this court to review the Secretary’s order pursuant to 28 U.”
Utica Packing Co. & David Fenster v. John R. Block, Sec'y, United States Dep't of Agric., 781 F.2d 71 (6th Cir. 1986). “The delegation to the Judicial Officer as final deciding officer in adjudication proceedings is contained in 7 C.F.R. § 2.35 (1985). The Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.”
Coosemans Specialties, Inc. v. Dep't of Agric., 482 F.3d 560 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “See 7 C.F.R. § 2.35 . The JO affirmed the ALJ’s initial decision in a decision and order issued April 20, 2006, finding in particular that in exchange for Faraci’s bribes, Cashin would “falsify” USDA inspection certificates by, inter alia, “increasing the percentage of defects”…”
Preach Fleming, Albert Lee Rowland & C.H. Meadows, Joe Fleming v. United States Dep't of Agric., 713 F.2d 179 (6th Cir. 1983). “7 C.F.R. § 2.35 (1982). 2 . Joe Fleming was fined $2,000 and disqualified for one year for showing “Delight’s Moonlight” in a sored condition on April 1, 1977.”
Finer Foods Sales Co., Inc. v. John R. Block, Sec'y of Agric., United States Dep't of Agric., & United States of Am., 708 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “The Judicial Officer of the Department of Agriculture, to whom the Secretary has delegated his adjudicatory functions under the Act ( 7 C.F.R. § 2.35 (1982)), found that “[a]t the time of its licensing in 1977 [the petitioner] was fully advised of the .”
Beef Nebraska, Inc., a Nebraska Corp. v. United States of Am., United States Dep't of Agric., 807 F.2d 712 (8th Cir. 1986). “7 C.F.R. § 2.35 (1986). In a decision and order filed November 26, 1985, the judicial officer, after a comprehensive analysis of the language and legislative history of § 228b(c), concluded that Beef Nebraska’s use of the controlled account delayed the collection of funds and…”
Craig Lesser & Marilyn S. Lesser, Doing Bus. as Lsr Indus., Inc. v. Michael Espy, Sec'y of Agric., 34 F.3d 1301 (7th Cir. 1994). “7 C.F.R. § 2.35 (a). The Judicial Officer affirmed the ALJ’s decision and increased the $9250 penalty by $500.”
Kleiman & Hochberg, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 497 F.3d 681 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “See 7 C.F.R. § 2.35 (a). The Judicial Officer issued his decision and order on April 5, 2006.”
Robert E. Parchman Virgil R. (Ray) Lemons Jack E. Hamilton v. United States Dep't of Agric., 852 F.2d 858 (6th Cir. 1988). “See 7 C.F.R. § 2.35 (1986). “The JO, sitting in review of an ALJ’s initial decision, is authorized by statute ‘to substitute its [sic] judgment for that of the ALJ.”
Abl Produce, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 25 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 1994). “See 7 C.F.R. § 2.35 (1993). 3 . The Judicial Officer acknowledged that he did not need to decide whether Lombardo's involvement in ACME violated PACA's employment restrictions, but proceeded to conclude that it did.”
Harry Klein Produce Corp. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 831 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1987). “See 7 C.F.R. § 2.35 . The Judicial Officer confirmed the findings of the AU and ordered the license revoked.”
Show all 39 citing cases →
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.