212 F. Supp. 2d 976 - Branstad v. Veneman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06 , is the correct vehicle for judicial review of USDA administrative action under the Swamp-buster Act. See Barthel, 181 F.3d at 937 (applying APA judicial review to USDA determinations under the Swampbuster Act); Downer [v. United States by USDA], 97 F.3d [999] 1002 [(8th Cir. 1996)] (same); Von Eye [v. United States],. 92 F.3d [681,] 685 [(8th Cir. 1996)] (same). However, judicial review under the APA is only available for a “final” agency determination. See 5 U.S.C. § 704 (permitting review of “final” agency action); In re Russell, 155 F.3d 1012,1013 (8th Cir.1998) (“the APA waives immunity only when the agency action is final”) (citing 5 U.S.C. §704 ).... í¡í >¡í # :Jí H* # Under the APA, a final agency determination may be overturned bn judicial review only if it is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706 ; see also Barthel, 181 F.3d at 937 ; Downer v. United States, 97 F.3d 999, 1002 (8th Cir.1996) (in an action for judicial review of administrative determinations concerning wetlands under the Swampbuster Act, the court concluded that “[o]ur review ... is limited to a determination of whether the decisions were ‘arbitrary, capricious,-an abuse of •discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with lav/ ”) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A)). As this court explained in Branstad I, . ■ “This narrow review entails a ‘searching and careful’ de novo review of the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 332 F. Supp. 2d 1200 - B & D Land and Livestock Co. v. Veneman

2. “The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06 , is the correct vehicle for judicial review of USDA administrative action under the Swamp-buster Act. See Barthel, 181 F.3d at 937 (applying APA judicial review to USDA determinations under the Swampbuster Act); Downer [v. United States by USDA ], 97 F.3d [999,] 1002 [(8th Cir. 1996)] (same); Von Eye [v. United States], 92 F.3d [681,] 685 [(8th Cir.1996)] (same). However, judicial review under the APA is only available for a “final” agency determination. See 5 U.S.C. § 704 (permitting review of “final” agency action); In re Russell, 155 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir.1998) (“the APA waives immunity only when the agency action is final”) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 704 ).... Under the APA, a final agency determination may be overturned on judicial review only if it is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706 ; see also Barthel, 181 F.3d at 937 ; Downer v. United States, 97 F.3d 999, 1002 (8th Cir.1996) (in an action for judicial review of administrative determinations concerning wetlands under the Swampbuster Act, the court concluded that “[o]ur review ... is limited to a determination of whether the decisions were ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law1 ”) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A)). As this court explained in Branstad I, “This narrow review entails a ‘searching and careful’ de novo review of the administrative record pre”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. B & D Land and Livestock Co. v. Schafer

3. “[T]he statute as amended in 1996 expressly states that “a final certification” is only “valid and in effect as long as the area is devoted to an agricultural use or until such time as the person affected by the certification requests review of the certification by the Secretary.” [ 16 U.S.C. § 3822 ](a)(4) (emphasis added). Thus, even assuming that the 1991 wetland determination for Tract # 2024 was “final and certified,” it was valid only until “the person affected by the determination ” — not just the person affected at the time of the certification — “requested] review of the certification by the Secretary.” 16 U.S.C. § 3822 (a)(4) (as amended April 4, 1996). Nothing about the language of subsection (a)(4) suggests that the “person affected by the determination” must be the person who owned the property at the time of the determination. To the contrary, in light of the plain language of the statute, the statute must be read to mean that any person subsequently affected by an existing wetland determination may invalidate the existing certification by requesting review of the certification by the Secretary. This reading is supported by comparison with subsection (a)(4), regarding the other condition for invalidating an existing certification, which is cessation of a period during which “the area is devoted to an agricultural use,” which also has no time limitation on when the cessation of such activity may occur, causing invalidation of the wetland determination. 16 U.S.C. §”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 332 F. Supp. 2d 1200 - B & D Land and Livestock Co. v. Veneman