Legal Opinion
Kuster v. Veneman
District Court, D. North Dakota
Decided August 1, 2002No. CIV. A2-01-46PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WEBB, Chief Judge.
I. Introduction
The Court has previously denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. #4), and it will now address the parties’ dispositive motions. The government moves to dismiss or, alternatively, it seeks summary judgment (doc. # 20). Plaintiffs have moved for partial summary judgment (doc. # 23).
Plaintiffs are a group of farmers who purchased or attempted to purchase a crop revenue coverage (“CRC”) insurance policy for their durum wheat during the 2001 crop year. 1 This type of coverage insures against revenue losses due to low yield…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Bishop v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Stinson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. MerrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ace Property And Casualty Insurance Company v. Federal Crop Insurance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2006
- In Re 2000 Sugar Beet Crop Insurance LitigationDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2002
- ACE PROP. & CAS. INS. v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp.District Court, S.D. Iowa · 2005
- Ace Property & Casualty Insurance v. Federal Crop InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2006
- Ace Property & Casualty Insurance v. Federal Crop InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 2005