Vito Balice, Individually and as the Agent of O. R. C. Company v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Opinion
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
ALARCON, Circuit Judge:
Vito Balice (“Balice”) appeals from the district court’s final order affirming the judicial officer’s (“JO”) decision to assess a $225,500 civil penalty against him pursuant to § 608c(14)(B) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (“AMAA”). The JO assessed a civil penalty of $9,500 individually against Balice and a civil penalty of $216,000 jointly and severally against Balice and his two uncles, Onofrio Calabrese and Rocco Calabrese (“Cala-breses”), for violating various provisions of the Almond Marketing Order during the 1987-1988 crop year. Balice…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Solem v. HelmSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States v. BajakajianSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Balint v. Carson CityCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Butz v. Glover Livestock Commission Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- United States v. Peter MacKbyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- United States Ex Rel. Tyson v. Amerigroup Illinois, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2007
- Jesus Pimentel v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Vasudeva v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- United States v. MacKbyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2002
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.