7 U.S.C. § 6999
Judicial review
A final determination of the Division shall be reviewable and enforceable by any United States district court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 74
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: St. Bernard Par. Gov't v. United States, 916 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
St. Bernard Par. Gov't v. United States, 916 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “7 U.S.C. § 6999 . Following the enactment of the 1994 statute, the Department of Agriculture promulgated regulations implementing the administrative review procedures.”
Payton v. United States Dep't of Agric., 337 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2003). “This decision constituted the agency’s final decision under 7 U.S.C. § 6999 . II. Jurisdiction Mr. Payton filed suit in district court to review the agency action, pursuant to 7 U.”
Dawson Farms, LLC v. Farm Serv. Agency, 504 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2007). “See 7 U.S.C. § 6999 . Before a person may bring an action against the Secretary or his department or his delegate, however, the person shall exhaust all administrative appeal procedures as provided by 7 U.”
Rick's Mishroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “The Act provides that a final determination of the National Appeals Division is reviewable in district court, 7 U.S.C. § 6999 , but that the appellant must Erst "exhaust all administrative appeal procedures established by the Secretary.”
Bartlett v. United States Dep't of Agric., 716 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2013). “7 U.S.C. § 6999 ; 7 C.F.R. § 11.13 (a). However, not all county committee decisions are eligible for administrative review.”
Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 250 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “See 7 U.S.C. § 6999 (“A final determination of the [National Appeals] Division shall be reviewable and enforceable by any United States district court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with chapter 7 of Title 5.”
Deaf Smith Cnty. Grain Processors, Inc. v. Glickman, 162 F.3d 1206 (D.C. Cir. 1998). “The District Court’s jurisdiction over this case is founded on Congress’s waiver of sovereign immunity in 7 U.S.C. § 6999 , which states, in its entirety: A final determination of the [National Appeals] Division shall be reviewable and enforceable by any United States district…”
Bruhn v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 749 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “Subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim Defendant maintains that the federal district court, not the Court of Federal Claims, is the proper court for judicial review of a NAD decision pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6999 . 2 Plaintiffs counter that they are…”
Enter. Nat'l Bank v. Vilsack, 568 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “He explained that Enterprise’s loss claim had been reduced by $3,030,000 based on Enterprise’s negligent servicing, citing the hearing officer’s findings that Enterprise had caused a loss of $2,950,000 based on Catfish’s failure to make the required equity injection and another…”
Five Points Road Jt. Venture v. Johanns, 542 F.3d 1121 (7th Cir. 2008). “The district court had jurisdiction under 7 U.S.C. § 6999 to review the National Appeals Division Director's determination.”
Aageson Grain & Cattle v. United States Dep't of Agric., 500 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2007). “” 7 U.S.C. § 6999 . C. NAD proceedings are “under” APA § 554.”
Farmers & Merchants Bank of Eatonton v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 38 (Fed. Cl. 1999). “7 U.S.C. § 6999 (1994). The applicable statute, 7 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.