Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8895774
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Hurn v. Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Committee
No. 8895774 · Decided February 10, 1970
No. 8895774·Ninth Circuit · 1970·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
February 10, 1970
Citation
No. 8895774
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: On May 31, 1966, appellant Paul J. Hurn entered into a Cropland Adjustment Agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture under the Cropland Adjustment Program, 79 Stat. 1206 , 7 U.S.C. § 1838 (1965). The agreement provided that in return for certain benefits appellant would divert designated farmlands from production and maintain vegetative cover on the diverted acreage. The agreement also provided that the acreage was not to be grazed and, by incorporating the regulations issued under the Program, required the farmland owner to “carry out such measures as are needed for the control of * * * weeds.” 7 C.F.R. § 751.119 (1969). Determining compliance with the agreement is left to the county and state Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committees. 7 C.F.R. § 751.103 (1969). A failure to comply may result in termination of the agreement. 7 C.F. R. § 751.124(d). On September 12, 1967, appellant’s agreement was terminated by the Stevens County A.S.C. Committee because of continued grazing on the designated acreage and appellant’s failure to take measures to control weeds. This decision was affirmed by the Washington State A.S.C. Service and the Secretary *860 of Agriculture. On petition for review, the district court found substantial evidence to support the administrative determination. We affirm. The record reveals several specific instances of reported cattle grazing and weeds growing on the designated acreage. Despite warnings to the appellant, violations continued. Appellant’s good faith and hardship, while they were entitled to and were given consideration, cannot relieve him of his responsibilities under the Cropland Adjustment Agreement. The district court did not' err in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment.
Plain English Summary
Hurn entered into a Cropland Adjustment Agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture under the Cropland Adjustment Program, 79 Stat.
Key Points
01Hurn entered into a Cropland Adjustment Agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture under the Cropland Adjustment Program, 79 Stat.
02The agreement provided that in return for certain benefits appellant would divert designated farmlands from production and maintain vegetative cover on the diverted acreage.
03The agreement also provided that the acreage was not to be grazed and, by incorporating the regulations issued under the Program, required the farmland owner to “carry out such measures as are needed for the control of * * * weeds.” 7 C.F.R
04Determining compliance with the agreement is left to the county and state Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committees.
Frequently Asked Questions
Hurn entered into a Cropland Adjustment Agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture under the Cropland Adjustment Program, 79 Stat.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Hurn v. Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Committee in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on February 10, 1970.
Use the citation No. 8895774 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.