HENRY TIMMONS DIGHTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES COFFMAN ET AL., AS THE REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR PIATT COUNTY, ETC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court's judgment affirming the review committee's determination of wheat acreage allotment was correct.
Plaintiff sought judicial review of a determination by the Review Committee for Piatt County, Illinois, which reduced his wheat acreage allotment. The…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Agricultural Adjustment Act Of 1938 cases and more on FLexlaw
HASTINGS, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant, Henry Timmons Dighton, brought this action against defendants-appellees, members of the Review Committee for Piatt County, Illinois, appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq. Appellant sought judicial review of the determination by appellees of the 1959 base wheat acreage and wheat acreage allotment for his farm.
The net effect of the determination complained of was to reduce appellant’s wheat acreage allotment approximately 20 acres for the year 1959.
The District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois entered judgment affirming the review committee’s determination and dismissing the action. The Honorable Casper Platt, Chief Judge, prepared and filed a well-considered opinion in this case, reported as Dighton v. Coffman, D.C.E.D.Ill.1959, 178 F.Supp. 114, followed by a supplemental opinion, Dighton v. Coffman, D.C.E.D.Ill.1959, 179 F.Supp. 682.
Appellant contends here that the action of the review committee and the district court was erroneous under the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, applicable statutory provisions, and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
We have carefully considered the record, briefs and oral arguments submitted on this appeal. We think the opinions of Judge Platt, cited above, adequately cover all issues before us and correctly resolve them, and such opinions are now approved and adopted as the opinion of this court in this appeal.1
The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
. To the same effect, see the recent case of Review Committee, Venue VII, etc. v.Willey, 8 Cir., 1960, 275 F. 2d 264.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. David, 334 F.2d 592 (5th Cir. 1964)
-
Delbert Bishop v. Review Comm., 298 F.2d 386 (8th Cir. 1962)
Authorities Cited
- Review Comm. v. Willey, 275 F.2d 264 (8th Cir. 1960)