C.F.R. » Title 9 » CHAPTER I—ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE › SUBCHAPTER B—COOPERATIVE CONTROL AND ERADICATION OF LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY DISEASES › PART 50—ANIMALS DESTROYED BECAUSE OF TUBERCULOSIS › Subpart A—General Indemnity

9 C.F.R. § 50.3

Payment to owners for animals destroyed

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

(a) The Administrator is authorized to agree on the part of the Department to pay indemnity to owners of the following animals:

(1) Cattle, bison, or captive cervids destroyed because the animals are infected with or exposed to tuberculosis;

(2) Cattle, bison, or captive cervids that have been classified as suspect for tuberculosis, except that the payment of indemnity for the destruction of suspect cattle, bison, and captive cervids will be withheld until the tuberculosis status of the suspect animal has been determined and, if the cattle, bison, or captive cervid is found to be infected with tuberculosis, until all cattle, bison, and captive cervids 12 months of age or older in the claimant's herd have been tested for tuberculosis under APHIS or State supervision; and

(3) Other livestock destroyed because they are classified as exposed to tuberculosis by the designated tuberculosis epidemiologist by reason of an association with an affected herd of cattle, bison, or captive cervids.

(b) In each case, the joint State-Federal indemnity paid, together with the amount for net salvage the owner receives, may not exceed the appraised value of the animal, as determined in accordance with § 50.9. Additionally, the Department will in no case pay more than $3,000 for an animal that is destroyed.

[67 FR 7591, Feb. 20, 2002]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1984–1984 · leading case: Loftin v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct. 596 (Ct. Cl. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Loftin v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct. 596 (Ct. Cl. 1984). · cites it 9× “See 9 C.F.R. § 50.3 (1983). 1 Plaintiff claims that the indemnification he received was insufficient and that he is entitled to the fair market value of the cattle minus their salvage value as mandated by 21 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.