Legal Opinion
In Re 2000 Sugar Beet Crop Insurance Litigation
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided September 26, 2002No. 0:01-cv-01629PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
ROSENBAUM, Chief Judge.
This is one of many motions arising out of a dispute over crop insurance contracts. The present motion is brought by Federal Crop Insurance Corporation’s (“FCIC”) to dismiss the third-party complaint. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds the motion is premature, based on third-party plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedies.
I. Background
The facts of this case are outlined in this Court’s Orders dated April 15, 2002 and September 26, 2002. For purposes of this motion, suffice it to say that sugar beet-growing plaintiffs claim their…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- McNeil v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Weinberger v. SalfiSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- McKart v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ace Property And Casualty Insurance Company v. Federal Crop Insurance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2006
- National Crop Insurance Services, Inc. v. Federal Crop Insurance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2003
- ACE PROP. & CAS. INS. v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp.District Court, S.D. Iowa · 2005
- Ace Property & Casualty Insurance v. Federal Crop InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2006
- Ace Property & Casualty Insurance v. Federal Crop InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.