Agriculture Decisions: Decisions of the Secretary of Agriculture Under the Regulatory Laws Administered in the United States Department of Agriculture, 62. sējums,3-4. daļasU.S. Government Printing Office, 2003 Up to 1988, the December issue contains a cumulative list of decisions reported for the year, by act, docket numbers arranged in consecutive order, and cumulative subject-index, by act. |
No grāmatas satura
1.5. rezultāts no 49.
256. lappuse
... parties for that volume , including consent decisions , listed alphabetically in a supplemental List of Decisions Reported . The alphabetical List of Decisions Reported and the subject matter Index ( from the beginning of the annual ...
... parties for that volume , including consent decisions , listed alphabetically in a supplemental List of Decisions Reported . The alphabetical List of Decisions Reported and the subject matter Index ( from the beginning of the annual ...
262. lappuse
... party must file a petition for review of a final agency order " within 60 days after its entry . " 28 U.S.C. § 2344. Here , the order at issue is date - stamped February 14 , 2002. Respondents ' Appendix ( RA ) 1. Although PMD Produce ...
... party must file a petition for review of a final agency order " within 60 days after its entry . " 28 U.S.C. § 2344. Here , the order at issue is date - stamped February 14 , 2002. Respondents ' Appendix ( RA ) 1. Although PMD Produce ...
294. lappuse
... parties agreed that the oral hearing would take place on June 19 , 2002. The case was subsequently rescheduled for hearing for June 20 , 2002 , in New York City . On February 4 , 2002 , Tony Penachio filed a Petition for Review in ...
... parties agreed that the oral hearing would take place on June 19 , 2002. The case was subsequently rescheduled for hearing for June 20 , 2002 , in New York City . On February 4 , 2002 , Tony Penachio filed a Petition for Review in ...
295. lappuse
... parties were given until November 6 , 2002 , within which to file simultaneous briefs . The Complainant did so ; the Respondent did not . Pertinent Statutory Provisions Section 2 ( 4 ) of the PACA ( 7 U.S.C. § 499b ( 4 ) ) provides in ...
... parties were given until November 6 , 2002 , within which to file simultaneous briefs . The Complainant did so ; the Respondent did not . Pertinent Statutory Provisions Section 2 ( 4 ) of the PACA ( 7 U.S.C. § 499b ( 4 ) ) provides in ...
302. lappuse
... parties . [ Note : This Decision and Order became effective on January 13 , 2003. ] In re : ROBERT A. ROBERTI , JR . , d / b / a PHOENIX FRUIT CO . PACA Docket No. D - 03-0006 . Ruling on Certified Question . Filed February 14 , 2003 ...
... parties . [ Note : This Decision and Order became effective on January 13 , 2003. ] In re : ROBERT A. ROBERTI , JR . , d / b / a PHOENIX FRUIT CO . PACA Docket No. D - 03-0006 . Ruling on Certified Question . Filed February 14 , 2003 ...
Citi izdevumi - Skatīt visu
Bieži izmantoti vārdi un frāzes
1999 through January 58 Agric 62 Agric accepted in interstate actively involved activities resulting Administrative Law Judge agreed purchase prices Agricultural Commodities Act Agricultural Marketing Service alleged Arminda Cano bankruptcy broker Buckhannon CARX commission merchant Complainant Complainant's connected with Jacobson corporation court Decision and Order Denice & Filice Department of Agriculture dismissal failed to pay February 21 fee-shifting fees and expenses Filice Packing Finding of Fact flagrant and repeated Fresh Valley Food frozen foods full payment promptly issued Jacobson Produce Judicial Officer June lots of perishable Michael Norinsberg October PACA Docket PACA license application Penachio percent of Jacobson period perishable agricultural commodities Petitioner was responsibly Petitioner's Practice 7 C.F.R. prevailing party pursuant to Section reparation award repeated violations Respondent filed responsibly connected Ruben Castillo Rules of Practice Secretary section 2(4 sellers surety bond tomatoes transaction Valley Food Service violated the PACA violation of section