Legal Opinion
Harry Birkenfield v. United States of America and Orville Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided November 10, 1966No. 16009_1PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
STALEY, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Harry Birkenfield, has brought this suit to enjoin the Secretary of Agriculture and his agents from interfering with appellant’s employment in the field of marketing perishable agricultural commodities. The issue presented is whether the Secretary’s actions, undertaken without providing the appellant a trial-type hearing, violated appellant’s right to due process. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and we affirm.
The complained-of actions arise out of proceedings against the Fort Pitt Tomato & Produce Co., Inc.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Greene v. McElroySupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NMSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Mississippi River Fuel Corporation v. Federal Power Commission, Illinois Power Company, Laclede Gas Company, Midsouth Gas Company, IntervenorsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1960
3Cited by30 opinions
- Carl Norman Quinn v. Earl L. Butz, Secretary of Agriculture, and United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1975
- Hawkins v. Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, U.S.A.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
- Zwick v. FreemanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
- Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances of the Virgin Islands Bar Association v. Russell B. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1971
- George Steinberg and Son, Inc. v. Earl L. Butz, Secretary of Agriculture, and United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.