7 C.F.R. § 780.1
General
This part sets forth rules applicable to appealability reviews, reconsiderations, appeals and alternative dispute resolution procedures comprising in aggregate the informal appeals process of FSA. FSA will apply these rules to facilitate and expedite participants' submissions and FSA reviews of documentary and other evidence material to resolution of disputes arising under agency program regulations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1972–1992 · leading case: Doty v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 615 (Ct. Cl. 1991).
Doty v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 615 (Ct. Cl. 1991). “” 7 C.F.R. § 780.1 . Plainly, these regulations govern Doty’s appeal from adverse ASCS determinations.”
United States v. Bisson, 646 F. Supp. 701 (D.S.D. 1986). “8 *706 The court will not reach the merits of Bisson’s claims, however, because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.”
Verlon Hilburn v. Earl L. Butz, Sec'y of Agric. & the United States Dep't of Agric., 463 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir. 1972). “7 CFR § 780.1 et seq. (1971) afford administrative appeal rights.”
Vandervelde v. Yeutter, 789 F. Supp. 24 (D.D.C. 1992). “25, 1991) (to be codified 7 C.F.R. § 780.1 ).”
Madsen v. Dep't of Agric., 866 F.2d 1035 (8th Cir. 1989). “Similarly, regulations covering appeals of agency determinations in specified farm programs, see 7 C.F.R. §§ 780.1 — 780.12 (1988), do not preclude all judicial review of farm program payment decisions.”
Carr v. Glass, 378 S.E.2d 383 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). “Although the appellant does appear to have exhausted his administrative appeal rights within the Department of Agriculture, see 7 CFR § 780.1 et seq., he did not thereafter seek an appeal to the review committee in accordance with 7 USCA § 1365.”
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.