Legal Opinion

Daniel Von Eye v. United States of America United States Department of Agriculture, Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided August 9, 1996No. 95-3034PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MAGILL, Circuit Judge.

Daniel Von Eye wishes to continue his efforts to drain wetlands on his farm, but does not want to lose eligibility for United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) benefits under the Swampbuster Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3821-3824, which conditions receipt of USDA benefits on wetlands preservation. The USDA’s Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service’s (ASCS) National Appeals Division (NDS) determined that, while Von Eye’s previous drainage of wetlands fell within an exception to the Swampbuster Act, any additional excavations to drain the wetlands would render him…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Bowen v. City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Lyng v. PayneSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces TecumCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
  5. Lockhart v. KenopsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1991

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Charles Gunn v. United States Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1997
  2. Branstad v. GlickmanDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 2000
  3. Keith Barthel Dorothy Barthel v. United States Department of Agriculture, Daniel Glickman, SecretaryCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
  4. Smith v. RasmussenDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1999
  5. Branstad v. VenemanDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 2002

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API