Legal Opinion
Vasudeva v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 12, 2000No. 98-35726PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RYMER, Circuit Judge:
We must decide whether the regulation governing civil monetary penalties in lieu of permanent disqualification for trafficking in food stamps, 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(j), complies with the Administrative Procedure Act, comports with substantive due process, and was applied in this case against owners of three 7-11 stores in the Seattle area consistent with the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.1 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and we affirm.
I
Owners of three 7-11 stores participated in the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. BajakajianSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Kim v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Aiman Ghattas, Doing Business as a & M Food Shop v. United States of America Michael Espy, Secretary of AgricultureCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994
- Vito Balice, Individually and as the Agent of O. R. C. Company v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, OpinionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Mary Corder, Doing Business as Corder Convenience Store, Inc., Dba 7-Eleven 27472b v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1997
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- United States v. Peter MacKbyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Affum v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2009
- Leonard Traficanti, D/B/A Lt's Gas/snaks v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2000
- United States v. MacKbyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2002
- State v. Sanford Video & News, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.