Payne v. Block’s Empirical Analysis
714 F.2d 1510 · 1983
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 2 U.S.C. § 621 (Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 7 U.S.C. § 1929 · 7 U.S.C. § 1961 · 7 U.S.C. § 1966
Relies on Federal Crop Ins Corporation v. Merrill · United States Accardi v. Shaughnessy · Morton v. Ruiz · Schweiker v. Hansen · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Miranda
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“FmHA failed to comply with federal regulations specifically designed to transmit notice of available emergency loan programs to the public. FmHA made no loans during the initial application period and only a handful during the renewed period. . . . "In light of FmHA's failure to comply with specific prescriptions for notice, we find it unnecessary to determine whether FmHA provided 'such public announcements as appear appropriate' or whether in fact such a requirement is judicially reviewable. We do note, however, the paucity of public announcement during both the initial and reopened application periods. Especially is this continual dearth of public notice noteworthy where the state director testified that he and his staff were 'flabbergasted' at the lack of response to the emergency loan program. . . . * * * * * "Our review of the record convinces us that the district court was not clearly erroneous in its six pages of findings of fact and that it was correct in its ultimate conclusion of insufficient notice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lyng v. Payne“where, as here, exigent circumstances beyond the farmers' control precluded intended beneficiaries from applying for loans, the agency had the power to extend the loan period and the District Court was within its power in ordering the agency to do so. To hold otherwise would allow the FmHA to totally fail to provide notice to congressionally intended potential beneficiaries and avoid being called to task for such conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lyng v. Payne“We emphasize that Congress had previously invoked, and 'expected' FmHA would invoke, a similar reopening remedy in 93-237 when potential beneficiaries of the program were confused as to the program's terms.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lyng v. Payne
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.