Schild v. Busch
District Court, S.D. Texas
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NOEL, District Judge.
Petitioner brought this action under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1281-1393, to review an administrative decision that he had exceeded his 1967 peanut acreage allot*1354ment. Petitioner’s first crop of peanuts in 1967' did not exceed his allotment. Later in the year, however, after harvesting the first crop, petitioner harvested a volunteer peanut crop (one permitted to spring up from seeds left in the ground during the first harvest) from some of the same acreage. Petitioner was notified that the Agriculture Department considers…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Richards v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
- United States v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- United States v. CookSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Stallard v. Review Committee of the United States Department of Agriculture Stabilization & Conservation ServiceDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1967
3Cited by4 opinions
- Carmona v. Division of Industrial SafetyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Standard Oil Co. v. Federal Energy AdministrationDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1978
- Brundidge Banking Company v. Pike County Agricultural Stabilization And Conservation CommitteeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990
- Brundidge Banking Co. v. Pike County Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation CommitteeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990