7 U.S.C. § 1429
Determinations of Secretary as final and conclusive
Determinations made by the Secretary under this Act shall be final and conclusive: Provided, That the scope and nature of such determinations shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act [15 U.S.C. 714 et seq.].
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases, 1957–1995 · leading case: Don Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp., 42 F.3d 1560 (10th Cir. 1994).
Don Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp., 42 F.3d 1560 (10th Cir. 1994). “§ 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’ contentions on appeal.”
James Doty & Susan Doty v. The United States, Defendant/cross-Appellant, 53 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “The agency’s administration of the various price support programs of the Department of Agriculture is subject to 7 U.S.C. § 1429 : § 1429. Determinations by the Secretary [of Agriculture] under this Act shall be final and conclusive; Provided, That the scope and nature of such…”
Gibson v. United States, 11 Cl. Ct. 6 (Ct. Cl. 1986). “Defendant argues that 7 U.S.C. §§ 1429 and 1385 (1982) interpose a jurisdictional bar on this court to hear this case.”
Arlington Oil Mills, Inc. v. John A. Knebel, Acting Sec'y of Agric., Birdsong Corp., Intervenors Robert W. Moore, Movants-Appellants, 543 F.2d 1092 (5th Cir. 1976). “12 When the Department issued its March 19 press release concerning peanut differentials for the 1976 crop year, it had made a determination which was “final and conclusive” under 7 U.S.C. § 1429 . Any further consideration by the Department of whether to alter this final…”
Carruth v. United States, 224 Ct. Cl. 422 (Ct. Cl. 1980). “Defendant also asserts that the Secretary’s action is shielded from judicial review by section 412 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, codified as 7 U.S.C. § 1429 (1976), which provides: § 1429.”
Raines v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 530 (Ct. Cl. 1987). “Is Judicial Review of Secretary of Agriculture’s Decision Available As further grounds for dismissal, defendant asserts that 7 U.S.C. §§ 1429 5 and 1385 6 preclude judicial review in this court of the administrative determinations made regarding plaintiffs’ PIK contract claim…”
Martin v. United States, 20 Cl. Ct. 738 (Ct. Cl. 1990). “Defendant cites 7 U.S.C. §§ 1429 and 1385 in support of its position.”
Carmen Gonzalez v. Orville L. Freeman, 334 F.2d 570 (D.C. Cir. 1964). “1057 (1949), 7 U.S.C. § 1429 (1958): “Determinations made by the Secretary [of Agriculture] under this Act shall be final and conclusive: Provided, That the scope and nature of such determinations shall not be inconsistent [emphasis added] with the provisions of the Commodity…”
Swartz v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 570 (Ct. Cl. 1988). “First, it argues that either the operative statutory provisions of 7 U.S.C. § 1429 (1982) 4 precludes review entirely, or limits review to the single inquiry—whether the Secretary’s administrative decision is legally consistent with the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act…”
Simons v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 685 (Ct. Cl. 1992). “) Further, 7 U.S.C. § 1429 provides: 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 Commodity Credit…”
Grav v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 390 (Ct. Cl. 1988). “The defendant brings 7 U.S.C. § 1429 (1982) to the court’s attention and argues that this section limits the scope of the court’s review.”
Knaub v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 268 (Ct. Cl. 1991). “7 U.S.C. § 1429 (1982) (emphasis in original).”
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.