7 C.F.R. § 780.8
County committee appeals
(a) A request for appeal to a county committee concerning a decision of a subordinate of the county committee must be submitted by a participant or by a participant's authorized representative in writing and must be addressed to the office in which the subordinate is employed.
(b) The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to appeals to a county committee. However, a county committee may confine presentations of evidence to material facts and may exclude evidence or questions that are irrelevant, unduly repetitious, or otherwise inappropriate.
(c) The official county committee decision on an appeal will be the decision letter that is issued following disposition of the appeal.
(d) Deliberations shall be in confidence except to the extent that a county committee may request the assistance of county committee or FSA employees during deliberations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1968–2006 · leading case: Patrick Esch v. Clayton K. Yeutter, Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Agric., 876 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
Patrick Esch v. Clayton K. Yeutter, Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Agric., 876 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “7 C.F.R. § 780.8 (b). 173 . Id. 174 . Id.”
Doty v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 615 (Ct. Cl. 1991). “But see 7 C.F.R. § 780.8 (d) (“The reviewing authority shall have prepared a written record containing a clear, concise statement of the facts as asserted by the participant and material facts found by the reviewing authority.”
Simons v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 685 (Ct. Cl. 1992). “We conclude this lack is in violation of 7 C.F.R. § 780.8 (d) (“The reviewing authority shall have prepared a written record containing a clear, concise statement of the .”
James Doty & Susan Doty v. The United States, Defendant/cross-Appellant, 53 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “The agency made no findings of fact, and there was no statement by the agency of the grounds of its decision, although 7 C.F.R. § 780.8 (d) requires that there be made at the hearing “a written record containing a clear, concise statement of the facts as asserted by the…”
Harts v. Johanns, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (D. Kan. 2006). “See Olenhouse, 42 F.3d at 1574 . The issue of misleading statements on March 8, 1999 is an important aspect of Plaintiffs untimely appeal that the agency must consider in its decision.”
Verlon Hilburn v. Earl L. Butz, Sec'y of Agric. & the United States Dep't of Agric., 463 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir. 1972). “1972) 2 We intimate no opinion as to the propriety of such a full scale trial in an otherwise similar case where the Secretary has accorded the "informal hearing" provided for by 7 CFR 780.8 (1971) 3 Both parties concede that the Hilburns could have brought a Tucker Act claim.”
United States v. Batson, 706 F.2d 657 (5th Cir. 1983). “” 7 C.F.R. § 780.8 . The Agricultural Adjustment Act provided that: “The facts constituting the basis for any .”
Garvey v. Freeman, 397 F.2d 600 (10th Cir. 1968). “7 C.F.R. 780.8. The reviewing authority was authorized by the regulations to “develop additional evidence from other sources [prior to making its determination]”.”
Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp., 807 F. Supp. 688 (D. Kan. 1992). “7 C.F.R. § 780.8 (d). The administrative agency found no procedural violations by either the county or state committees, and set forth the facts presented and the basis for its conclusions.”
Vandervelde v. Yeutter, 789 F. Supp. 24 (D.D.C. 1992). “7 C.F.R. § 780.8 (emphasis added). Under these regulations, the reviewing authority was authorized to “request or permit”, at its discretion, persons other than those appearing on behalf of the program participant to present evidence or information and, in such event, permit the…”
Garvey v. Freeman, 397 F.2d 600 (10th Cir. 1968). “7 C.F.R. 780.8. The reviewing authority was authorized by the regulations to "develop additional evidence from other sources [prior to making its determination]".”
Lucio v. Yeutter, 798 F. Supp. 39 (D.D.C. 1992). “He argues that ASCS did not prepare a written record containing a clear, concise statement of material facts as required by 7 C.F.R. § 780.8 (b). Finally, plaintiff claims that DASCO failed to allow plaintiff to correct errors in forms although such correction is permitted by…”
— 7 C.F.R. § 780.8(d) — 2 cases
Doty v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 615 (Ct. Cl. 1991). “But see 7 C.F.R. § 780.8 (d) (“The reviewing authority shall have prepared a written record containing a clear, concise statement of the facts as asserted by the participant and material facts found by the reviewing authority.”
Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp., 807 F. Supp. 688 (D. Kan. 1992). “7 C.F.R. § 780.8 (d). The administrative agency found no procedural violations by either the county or state committees, and set forth the facts presented and the basis for its conclusions.”
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.