7 U.S.C. § 1363
Review of quota; review committee
Any farmer who is dissatisfied with his farm marketing quota may, within fifteen days after mailing to him of notice as provided in section 1362 of this title, have such quota reviewed by a local review committee composed of three farmers from the same or nearby counties appointed by the Secretary. Such committee shall not include any member of the local committee which determined the farm acreage allotment, the normal yield, or the farm marketing quota for such farm. Unless application for review is made within such period, the original determination of the farm marketing quota shall be final.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases, 1940–2016 · leading case: United States v. Lillard, 143 F. Supp. 113 (W.D. Mo. 1956).
United States v. Lillard, 143 F. Supp. 113 (W.D. Mo. 1956). “461, and that he failed to apply within fifteen (15) days pursuant to the Act, 7 U.S. C.A. § 1363; 7 C.F.R. 728.465, for a review by a Reviewing Committee, of the farm acreage allotment, wheat marketing quota, wheat marketing excess, or any of the other determinations made in…”
Walter J. Miller v. United States, 242 F.2d 392 (6th Cir. 1957). “31 , 7 U.S.C. § 1363 , 7 U.S.C.A. § 1363 , should be enforced for the determination of the farm marketing excess.”
Fred Chandler, Sr. v. W. Lewis David, 350 F.2d 669 (5th Cir. 1965). “Pursuant to the provisions of 7 U.S.C.A. § 1363 , timely appeals were perfected to a Review Committee composed of three local farmers appointed by the Secretary.”
Thomas v. Cnty. Off. Comm. of Cameron Cnty., 327 F. Supp. 1244 (S.D. Tex. 1971). “After further consideration of the pleadings and the relevant law, the Court is convinced that to exhaust their administrative remedies plaintiffs must apply to the appropriate County Office Committees and appeal any ruling they deem to be adverse to the approriate County Review…”
Hart v. Hassell, 250 F. Supp. 893 (E.D.N.C. 1966). “They also agree that plaintiff did not seek a review of this determination before a review committee as required by 7 U.S.C.A. § 1363 . It is generally held that failure to resort to the administrative review results in the finality of the original determination and precludes…”
United States v. C. E. Sykes, 310 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1962). “7 U.S.C.A. § 1363 . Appellee did not seek such review.”
J. T. Fulford v. Jesse v. B. Forman, Elmer G. Gardner & Murphey W. Luna, 245 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1957). “7 U.S.C.A. § 1363 , “Any farmer who is dissatisfied with his farm marketing quota may, within fifteen days after mailing to him of notice as provided in section 1362 of this title, have such quota reviewed by a local review committee composed of three farmers from the same or…”
United States v. Henry Kissinger, 250 F.2d 940 (3rd Cir. 1958). ““(3) The farm marketing excess for wheat shall be regarded as available for marketing, and the penalty and the' storage amount or amounts to be delivered to the Secretary of the commodity shall be computed upon the normal production of the excess acreage. Where, upon the…”
Morrow v. Clayton, 326 F.2d 36 (10th Cir. 1963). “, to compel the members of the State Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee 1 *and its Executive Director to cancel the revised notices of marketing quota and excess and rescind the assessment of penalties, prior to administrative review by a Review Committee…”
Conifer Farms, Inc. v. Brent, 226 S.E.2d 585 (Ga. 1976). “7 USCA §§ 1363, 1365, 1366. Such review is declared to be exclusive (7 USCA § 1367), and no court of the United States or of any state has jurisdiction to pass upon the legal validity of any determination of the committee except by the method of review provided.”
Vann v. Jackson, 165 F. Supp. 377 (E.D.N.C. 1958). “7 U.S.C.A. § 1363 . The Review Committee having reduced the tobacco marketing quota for plaintiffs’ land for the years 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958, plaintiffs instituted this proceeding in the Superior Court of Sampson County, North Carolina, seeking a court review of the…”
Lee v. Roseberry, 94 F. Supp. 324 (E.D. Ky. 1950). “5 acres; that she was dissatisfied with her farm marketing quota for the year 1950 and filed an application for review pursuant to the provisions of 7 U.S.C.A. § 1363 ; that the members of the Review Committee which heard her application are the defendants, H.”
— 7 U.S.C. § 1363(1)(2) — 1 case
Barrera v. Monsanto (Del. Super. Ct. 2016).
— 7 U.S.C. § 1363(3) — 1 case
Barrera v. Monsanto (Del. Super. Ct. 2016).
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.