C.F.R. » Title 7 » CHAPTER VII—FARM SERVICE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE › SUBCHAPTER B—FARM MARKETING QUOTAS, ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS, AND PRODUCTION ADJUSTMENT › PART 718—PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLE PROGRAMS › Subpart D—Equitable Relief From Ineligibility

7 C.F.R. § 718.303

Reliance on incorrect actions or information

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

(a) Notwithstanding any other law, if an action or inaction by a participant is based upon good faith reliance on the action or advice of an authorized representative of an FSA county or State committee, and that action or inaction results in the participant's noncompliance with the requirements of a covered program that is to the detriment of the participant, then that action or inaction still may be approved by the Deputy Administrator as meeting the requirements of the covered program, and benefits may be extended or payments made in as specified in § 718.305.

(b) This section applies only to a participant who:

(1) Relied in good faith upon the action of, or information provided by, an FSA county or State committee or an authorized representative of such committee regarding a covered program;

(2) Acted, or failed to act, as a result of the FSA action or information; and

(3) Was determined to be not in compliance with the requirements of that covered program.

(c) This section does not apply to cases where the participant had sufficient reason to know that the action or information upon which they relied was improper or erroneous or where the participant acted in reliance on their own misunderstanding or misinterpretation of program provisions, notices or information.

[80 FR 41998, July 16, 2015]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2022–2023 · leading case: Fitch v. United States of Am. (M.D. Ala. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fitch v. United States of Am. (M.D. Ala. 2022). “See also 7 C.F.R. § 718.303 . The USDA first argues that Fitch failed to preserve and exhaust her argument that she is entitled to equitable relief under 7 U.”
Shelley v. United States of Am. (M.D. Ala. 2022). “”); see also 7 C.F.R. § 718.303 . Indeed, no evidence was provided regarding any detrimental reliance on agency action or advice.”
Daniels v. Farm Serv. Agency (M.D. Ala. 2023). “§ 7996 (b); see also 7 C.F.R. § 718.303 . But the record is clear that Harvey never requested equitable relief from the Deputy Director in any form on any occasion, whether that be in his response to the Agency’s appeal for director review, (see Doc.”
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.