Circuit split · administrative law
Whether the USDA's construction of the Horse Protection Act imposing liability on a horse's owner regardless of the owner's knowledge that the horse was sored is a reasonable interpretation entitled to deference
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · December 2, 2003
“But there is a circuit split regarding whether the USDA’s construction of the HPA with respect to owner liability is reasonable.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- Joined by · D.C. Cir.Crawford v. USDA50 F.3d 46
“He contends that USDA’s contrary construction of the statute is simply wrong.” — McCloy v. United States Department of Agriculture, acknowledging the split
- Declined to follow · 6th Cir.Baird v. USDA39 F.3d 131
“He contends that USDA’s contrary construction of the statute is simply wrong.” — McCloy v. United States Department of Agriculture, acknowledging the split
What the split turns on
- Statutes:
- § 1824(2)(D) ·
- § 1824(2) ·
- § 10(b)
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.