Golightly v. Yeutter
District Court, D. Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED ORDER
BROOMFIELD, District Judge.
Plaintiffs move for summary judgment declaring the plaintiffs separate “persons” for purposes of the Payment Limitation Regulations, 7 C.F.R. § 795, applicable to Price Support Production and Adjustment programs promulgated under the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 1421 et seq. Defendant responded to the motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment affirming the administrative decision or, in the alternative, remanding the matter for further administrative action. Both motions have been fully briefed and the court has heard oral…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Udall v. TallmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. HodelCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- United States v. Alpine Land and Reservoir Co., and Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, United States of America v. Alpine Land and Reservoir Co., and Truckee-Carson Irrigation District v. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of IndiansCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Washington Crab Producers, Inc. v. MosbacherCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Pope v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Huntsman Farms, Inc. v. EspyDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1996
- Bateman Co. v. United States Department of AgricultureDistrict Court, M.D. Georgia · 2000
- Doane v. EspyDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1993
- Lucio v. YeutterDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1992
- United States v. GoodeDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1991