Koretoff v. Vilsack’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 5 district ·

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This case involves the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, a landmark piece of legislation that arose out of the farming catastrophe during the Great Depression. The AMAA au thorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate marketing orders that regulate the production and sale of agricultural commodities. 7 U.S.C. §§ 601-674 . It seeks to “avoid unreasonable fluctuations in supplies and prices” of various farm commodities. Id. § 602(4). The AMAA is currently applied to about three dozen agricultural commodities, such as milk, avocados, oranges, and peanuts. Agricultural marketing orders may dictate the “total quantity” of a regulated commodity sold in a particular region, as well as the “grade, size, or quality thereof.” Id. § 608c(6)(A).... In 1950, acting pursuant to the AMAA, the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated the California Almond Marketing Order, 7 C.F.R. pt. 981. The Almond Order has been amended often in the 60 years since. Among other things, the Order sets quality standards for commercially sold almonds and regulates the quantity of almonds that may be sold in a given year. In the wake of two [SJalmonella outbreaks in 2001 and 2004, the Secretary in 2007 issued [the Salmonella Rule] under the Almond Order.... The [Salmonella Rule] required the use of one of several approved methods for reducing [SJalmonella bacteria in almonds, all involving either pasteurization or chemical treatment of nearly all almonds sold. 7 C.F.R. § 981.442 (b).... The curre”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 841 F. Supp. 2d 1 - Koretoff v. Schaefer

2. “[Producers did not vote on promulgation of 7 C.F.R. § 981.442 (b)’s [Rai monella R]ule. Rather, that regulation was promulgated pursuant to the authority of the ... Board—with the approval of the Secretary—to establish “such minimum quality and inspection requirements ... as will contribute to orderly marketing or be in the public interest” and to “establish rules and regulations necessary and incidental.” 7 C.F.R. § 981.42 (b); see ... 71 Fed.Reg. [at] 70,687.... Because such rules are not amendments to the Order, no pro ducer referendum was held before promulgation of the [Salmonella R]ule.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 841 F. Supp. 2d 1 - Koretoff v. Schaefer

3. “APA generally establishes a cause of action for those suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Azar