United States v. Batson’s Empirical Analysis
706 F.2d 657 · 1983
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15B (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 714B · 28 U.S.C. § 2415 (Indian Claims Limitation Act of 1982) · 28 U.S.C. § 2416 · 31 U.S.C. § 3731 (False Claims Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 1385 · 7 U.S.C. § 1421 (Agricultural Act of 1949) · 7 U.S.C. § 1444
Relies on Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Kolender v. Lawson · Arnett v. Kennedy · United States v. Harriss
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The facts constituting the basis for any ... payment under the ... wheat, feed grain ... programs authorized by the Agricultural Act of 1949 and this Act [Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938], any loan or price support operation, or the amount thereof, when officially determined in conformity with the applicable regulations prescribed by the Secretary or by the Commodity Credit Corporation, shall be final and conclusive and shall not be reviewable by any other officer or agency of the Government.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“cases). The general factual background of each of these O'Neil cases and of the seven Batson cases is basically similar and is set out in detail in the Batson opinion. Since procedural issues are controlling in the O'Neil cases considered here, we will only generally outline the background facts. 3 The appellees were participants in the Upland Cotton Price Support Program in Gaines County, Texas. Under this program the USDA was authorized to make loans and subsidy payments to cotton producers through the Commodity Credit Corporation and to require the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“may not necessarily be entitled to the ‘conclusive’ effect ASCS factual findings otherwise receive by virtue of 7 U.S.C. § 1385 ____ Whether they did or did not in fact receive such payments may require a de novo judicial determination. This judicial inquiry is required to determine whether these appellees were properly subject to the authority of the ASCS compliance review process and thus to the application of section 1385.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.