U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 35— AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938 › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— LOANS, PARITY PAYMENTS, CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS, MARKETING QUOTAS, AND MARKETING CERTIFICATES › Part Part F— Miscellaneous Provisions and Appropriations › Subpart subpart i— miscellaneous

7 U.S.C. § 1385

Finality of payments and loans; substitution of beneficiaries

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar

The facts constituting the basis for any chapter 3B of title 16 payment, any payment under the wheat, feed grain, upland cotton, extra long staple cotton, and rice programs authorized by chapter 35A of this title and this chapter, any loan, or price support operation, or the amount thereof, when officially determined in conformity with the applicable regulations prescribed by the Secretary or by the Commodity Credit Corporation, shall be final and conclusive and shall not be reviewable by any other officer or agency of the Government. In case any person who is entitled to any such payment dies, becomes incompetent, or disappears before receiving such payment, or is succeeded by another who renders or completes the required performance, the payment shall, without regard to any other provisions of law, be made as the Secretary of Agriculture may determine to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances and provide by regulations. This section also shall be applicable to payments provided for under section 1348 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59 cases, 1943–2000 · leading case: Gross v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 605 (Ct. Cl. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gross v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 605 (Ct. Cl. 1974). · cites it 11× “This motion specifically involves a basic, statutory provision for the finality of the administratively determined facts involved in determination of lack of eligibility to participate in the instant Feed Grain Programs, 7 U.S.C. § 1385 . *608 It was originally enacted as…”
Don Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp., 42 F.3d 1560 (10th Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “There are, however, two statutory provisions applicable to the Wheat Program that purport to limit judicial review: 7 U.S.C. § 1385 and 7 U.S.C. § 1429 . Neither party addresses these statutes in their briefs, but we must consider them before reaching the merits of the Farmers’…”
Simons v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 685 (Ct. Cl. 1992). · cites it 8× “Congress significantly narrowed the scope of judicial review concerning most agricultural price support programs by the enactment of 7 U.S.C. §§ 1385 and 1429. As a result, judicial review of final ASCS action concerning DTP contracts is much more restricted than most other…”
John C. Gross v. United States, 676 F.2d 295 (8th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “See' 7 U.S.C. § 1385 (1970). 9 The district court in this case applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to eliminate as a basis for Gross’ present action the alleged violations of the regulations raised in the Court of Claims.”
Pettersen v. United States, 10 Cl. Ct. 194 (Ct. Cl. 1986). · cites it 5× “Contentions of the Parties Plaintiffs argue that judicial review of government conduct is not precluded by 7 U.S.C. § 1385 , 2 relying on Garvey v. Freeman, 397 F.”
Patrick Esch v. Clayton K. Yeutter, Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Agric., 876 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “The Department relies on 7 U.S.C. § 1385 (Supp. IV 1986) which in relevant part, provides that ”[t]he facts constituting the basis for .”
Stegall v. United States, 19 Cl. Ct. 765 (Ct. Cl. 1990). · cites it 3× “7 U.S.C. § 1385 . Section 1385, however, does not preclude courts from reviewing legal conclusions or the application of factual findings to law.”
Frank's Livestock & Poultry Farm, Inc. v. The United States, 905 F.2d 1515 (Fed. Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “Approval of such a request is dependent upon the commodity satisfying two requirements: (1) an ability to be safely stored, and (2) a certain minimum quality eligibility.”
United States v. Batson, 706 F.2d 657 (5th Cir. 1983). · cites it 5× “” 7 U.S.C. § 1385 . The payment or subsidy element of the upland cotton program is at issue in this appeal.”
United States v. Batson, 782 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1986). · cites it 6× “The government pursued one case in advance of the others to test its theory that the determinations were final and nonreviewable under 7 U.S.C. § 1385 . In that case, the district court awarded the United States summary judgment, and this court affirmed.”
Gibson v. United States, 11 Cl. Ct. 6 (Ct. Cl. 1986). · cites it 2× “7 U.S.C. § 1385 (emphasis supplied). The clear language of this provision shows that it is addressed only to factual determinations.”
Doty v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 615 (Ct. Cl. 1991). · cites it 2× “” 7 U.S.C. § 1385 . Congress has also provided that, “Determinations made by the Secretary under [the Agricultural Act of 1949] shall be final and conclusive: Provided, That the scope and nature of such determinations shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the…”
Show all 59 citing cases →
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.