Legal Opinion
Evans v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided December 22, 2006No. 06-439CPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
LETTOW, Judge.
Plaintiffs are raisin growers in California who claim that the United States, in its implementation of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (“Agricultural Marketing Act”), Pub.L. No. 75-137, 50 Stat. 246 (codified as amended at 7 U.S.C. §§ 601-74), by promulgating the currently effective raisin marketing order under the statute, has taken their property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Agricultural Marketing Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture (the “Secretary”) to issue…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Horne v. Department of AgricultureSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Horne v. United States Department of AgricultureCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Strategic Housing Finance Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Ciapessoni v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- Horne v. United States Department of AgricultureCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.