TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Review Committee, Composed of F. O. Blair, Duly Appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Etc. v. Edward L. Gladney

REVIEW COMMITTEE, Composed of F. O. Blair Et Al., Duly Appointed by the U. S. Secretary of Agriculture, Etc., Appellant, v. Edward L. GLADNEY, Appellee

Review Comm., Composed of F. O. Blair, Duly Appointed by the U.S. Sec'y of Agric., Etc. v. Gladney, 354 F.2d 990 (5th Cir. 1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 12, 1966
Docket
No. 21845
Judges
Jones, Thornberry, Sloan
Citations
354 F.2d 990

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The appellee, Edward L. Gladney, brought an action in the district court to review the action of the appellant Review Committee in determining Gladney’s 1964 allotment for cotton production acreage. As is shown by the opinion of the district court, 1

the County Committee had at its disposal something over 8,000 acres for allotment to correct inequities and to prevent hardship under 7 U.S.C.A. § 1344 (f) (3). The Committee determined that every farm in the parish was an inequity and a hardship case, and apparently gave no consideration to the requirements of the Acreage Allotment Regulations 2

relating to the allotment of inequity and hardship acreage. It allotted nearly 8,000 of the acres among all of the farms on a ratable basis, setting aside 204 acres to adjust special hardship cases. The district court held, and correctly we think, that the ratable allotment was not the making of adjustments for inequities or hardships. We disagree with the district court that the appellee became entitled to an inequity and hardship allotment upon clearing additional land and making it available for planting. It is our view that the availability of additional land for planting may be considered in making of allotments but is only one factor and not necessarily a controlling one. Edwards v. Owens, E.D.Mo.1955, 137 F.Supp. 63 . We conclude that, under the peculiar situation here shown, which is one not likely to recur, there is no reversible error in the district court’s judgment. We therefore affirm its judgment but with the caveat that the increased allotment resulting from and required by its judgment is not binding as a basis for future allotments. The motion to dismiss the appeal for mootness is denied. The judgment is Affirmed.

1

. Gladney v. Review Committee, 230 F. Supp. 35 .

2

. Any acreage from the county reserve and any allocation to the county from the State reserve to correct inequities and prevent hardship may he used by the county committee for making adjustments in farm allotments to correct inequities and to prevent hardship, taking into consideration for the farm the acreages planted to cotton in the farm base years, the land, labor, and equipment available for the production of cotton; crop-rotation practices; the soil and other physical facilities, affecting the production of cotton; and abnormal conditions or production and any other factors for correcting inequities and preventing hardship.

7

C.F.R. 722.201(c) (4).

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1966: 11967: 11968: 119662026peak 1966 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Edwards v. Owens, 137 F. Supp. 63 (E.D. Mo. 1955) 6
Gladney v. Review Comm., 230 F. Supp. 35 (W.D. La. 1964) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list