Legal Opinion

O'Connell v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided February 17, 1988No. 517-86CPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NETTESHEIM, Judge.

The backdrop for this case before the court after argument on cross-motions for summary judgment is an administrative process that would have invited Franz Kafka to take notes. Plaintiff applied to participate in a program to reduce milk production, and her contract was accepted. After she reduced her herd substantially in reliance on forthcoming contract payments, the first payment was disapproved. The local governmental office responsible recommended leniency or special consideration, because whatever deficiency in plaintiff’s eligibility for payment, all the facts…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Udall v. TallmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
  5. Morton v. RuizSupreme Court of the United States · 1974

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991
  2. Halbert v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API