UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JAMES W. BLACKWELL AND EVERETT BLACKWELL, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the administrative committee's findings were final and conclusive, precluding judicial review.
The United States sued to recover incentive payments made under the National Wool Act. The government moved for summary judgment based on an administr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants were sued by the United States to recover incentive payments made under the National Wool Act of 1954, 7 U.S.C. § 1781 et seq. The government filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of an administrative record compiled by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee in its determination that the appellants were not entitled to the incentive payments and must therefore repay them. See 7 CFR 780.4 and 780.5. The district court granted the motion and entered judgment against James W. Blackwell for $43,454.25 and against Everett Blackwell for $19,158.29. The Blackwells appealed.
The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee’s fact findings made pursuant to the Secretary of Agriculture’s regulations were “final and conclusive,” 7 U.S.C.A. § 1785, and not subject to review in the federal courts.1 The government pleaded the Committee’s findings, and defendants did not dispute that they were the Committee’s findings. Hence, no issue as to material fact cognizable in the district court existed, and summary judgment was proper. F.R. Civ.P. 56(c).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. See Dickson v. Edward, 5th Cir. en banc 1961, 293 F. 2d 211 and Caulfield v. United States Department of Agriculture, 5th Cir. en banc 1961, 293 F. 2d 217, which considered the effect of an identical “final and conclusive” provision in the Soil Bank Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1809.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Glynn Batson & Southplains Land Corp., 782 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1986)
-
Gross v. The United States, 505 F.2d 1271 (Ct. Cl. 1974)
-
United States v. Metro. Petroleum Co., Inc., 743 F. Supp. 820 (S.D. Fla. 1990)…f’s motion for summary judgment. 6 Where a plaintiff’s right to recover in an enforcement action is based on a favorable administrative decision which is unreviewable, summary judgment can be appropriate. See United States v. Blackwell, 467 F.2d 1377 (5th Cir.1972) (affirming granting of summary judgment in suit seeking enforcement of agency order where agency findings were not subject to review). See generally United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 86 S.Ct. 1545, 1…
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Siegent Caulfield v. U. S. Dep't OF Agric., 293 F.2d 217 (5th Cir. 1961)
- Dickson v. Mrs. C. O. Edwards, 293 F.2d 211 (5th Cir. 1961)