Legal Opinion

Love v. United States

District Court, D. Montana

Decided February 27, 1987No. CV-84-167-GFPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

HATFIELD, District Judge.

The plaintiffs, Clinton W. and Rose Mary Love, are farmers who obtained numerous agricultural loans from the Farmers Home Administration (“FmHA”), under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (“CFRDA”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1921 et seq. (1982); loans purportedly secured by security agreements and mortgages on the personal and real property of the Loves. When the Loves defaulted upon the loan obligations, the FmHA foreclosed upon the security agreements, repossessing certain machinery and livestock critical to the Loves’ operation.

The Loves instituted the…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Carlson v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio GrandenseSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Indian Towing Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
  5. Hurn v. OurslerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Love v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  2. Love v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  3. Love v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
  4. Love v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API