Reform and Modernization of the Farmers Home Administration, S. 1179: Hearing Before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate, One Hundredth Congress, First Session on S. 1179 ... June 9, 1987U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988 - 428 lappuses |
No grāmatas satura
1.–5. rezultāts no 61.
46. lappuse
... take their chances on FmHA's later willingness to approve them for these programs -- a chancy business in these hard ... adverse actions " . FmHA has arbitrarily insulated many of its decisions from the appeal process , in direct ...
... take their chances on FmHA's later willingness to approve them for these programs -- a chancy business in these hard ... adverse actions " . FmHA has arbitrarily insulated many of its decisions from the appeal process , in direct ...
60. lappuse
... decision in the Coleman v . Lyng national class action lawsuit . Farmers ' Legal Action Group , Inc. of St. Paul , Minnesota , attorneys for the farmers , filed a challenge in December 1985 to the " Notice of Intent to Take Adverse Action ...
... decision in the Coleman v . Lyng national class action lawsuit . Farmers ' Legal Action Group , Inc. of St. Paul , Minnesota , attorneys for the farmers , filed a challenge in December 1985 to the " Notice of Intent to Take Adverse Action ...
61. lappuse
... Take Adverse Action " and a " Notice of Acceleration " on May 7 , 1987 , or between May 7 , 1987 and June 2 , 1987 . Category # 3 : Farmers who received the " Notice of Intent to Take Adverse Action " and a " Notice of Acceleration ...
... Take Adverse Action " and a " Notice of Acceleration " on May 7 , 1987 , or between May 7 , 1987 and June 2 , 1987 . Category # 3 : Farmers who received the " Notice of Intent to Take Adverse Action " and a " Notice of Acceleration ...
62. lappuse
... Take Adverse Action " ? The June 2 , 1987 court decision says that all procedures taken after the defective notices were sent to Category # 1 farmers are void . However , many farmers in Category # 1 are still waiting for FmHA to ...
... Take Adverse Action " ? The June 2 , 1987 court decision says that all procedures taken after the defective notices were sent to Category # 1 farmers are void . However , many farmers in Category # 1 are still waiting for FmHA to ...
63. lappuse
... Take Adverse Action " forms are sent to the farmer and the farmer has the opportunity to apply for the services listed on those forms . Can FmHA take Category # 1 farmers ' ASCS payments ? FmHA may not take Category # 1 farmers ' ASCS ...
... Take Adverse Action " forms are sent to the farmer and the farmer has the opportunity to apply for the services listed on those forms . Can FmHA take Category # 1 farmers ' ASCS payments ? FmHA may not take Category # 1 farmers ' ASCS ...
Citi izdevumi - Skatīt visu
Bieži izmantoti vārdi un frāzes
acres agency appeal ASCS payments assistance attorneys Bank Berthold Reservation bill Bureau of Indian Category 1 farmers Chairman CHEYENNE RIVER CLARK Coleman Congress county supervisor court debt settlement decision deferral delinquent dwelling retention Edward Lone Fight eligible family farm Farm Credit System farmers and ranchers Farmers Home Administration Federal filed financing FmHA borrowers FmHA loan FmHA offices FmHA's foreclose foreclosure Form FmHA Fort Berthold Reservation funds going guaranteed hearing impact Indian Affairs Indian agriculture Intent to Take lease legislation lenders liquidation living and operating market value mediation million Minnesota mortgage Nebraska North Dakota Notice of Acceleration Notice of Intent Oklahoma operating expenses percent plaintiffs problems proposed ranching rebuilding regulations releases restructuring rural secondary market Secretary sell Senator CONRAD Senator DASCHLE Senator MELCHER sludge ash Take Adverse Action testimony Three Affiliated Tribes trust land
Populāri fragmenti
63. lappuse - ... the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall: (1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be — (a) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law...
54. lappuse - Although this inquiry into the facts is to be searching and careful, the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.
48. lappuse - B ) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ( 1 ) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right...
55. lappuse - Particularly is this respect due when the administrative practice at stake 'involves a contemporaneous construction of a statute by the men charged with the responsibility of setting its machinery in motion; of making the parts work efficiently and smoothly while they are yet untried and new.
48. lappuse - ... (F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.
63. lappuse - So far as necessary to decision and where presented the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of any agency action.
64. lappuse - First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.
55. lappuse - When faced with a problem of statutory construction, this Court shows great deference to the interpretation given the statute by the officers or agency charged with its administration.
64. lappuse - Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for "[w]here a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the 'injustice or hardship' by a holding of nonretroactivity.
58. lappuse - The notice shall include (1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public rule making proceedings; (2) reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and (3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.