303 F.2d 570 (8th Cir. 1962), 17023, Duba v. Schuetzle

Docket Nº17023.
Citation303 F.2d 570
Party NameWilliam D. DUBA, George O. Crouch, and Walter N. Evans, individually and as mambers of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation State Committee for the State of South Dakota, and Al Johnson, individually and as State Administrative Officer for the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee for the State of South Dakota, Appellants
Case DateMay 23, 1962
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 570

303 F.2d 570 (8th Cir. 1962)

William D. DUBA, George O. Crouch, and Walter N. Evans, individually and as mambers of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation State Committee for the State of South Dakota, and Al Johnson, individually and as State Administrative Officer for the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee for the State of South Dakota, Appellants,

v.

Hilmer SCHUETZLE, Willis Rodenberg, John Pollock, and Martin Schaeffer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; O. H. Noste; and Herb Ritter, R. B. LaFave and Virgil Biel, as members of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation County Committee of Campbell County, south Dakota, Appellees.

No. 17023.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 23, 1962

Rehearing Denied June 21, 1962.

David L. Rose, Atty., Civil Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellants and William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., Harold C. Doyle, U.S. Atty., Sioux Falls, S.D., and Alan S. Rosenthal, Atty., Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief.

Page 571

Morris Myers, Aberdeen, S.D., for appellees and Joe L. Maynes, Aberdeen, S.D., was with him on the brief.

Before VOGEL, VAN OOSTERHOUT and MATTHES, Circuit Judges.

MATTHES, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the order of the District Court for the District of South Dakota, entered on March 13, 1962, granting, upon motion of the plaintiffs, appellees, a preliminary injunction which in effect requires the South Dakota State Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee of the Department of Agriculture, hereinafter referred to as the 'State Committee' to remove the Campbell County office from Herreid, South Dakota, and to establish the same in Mound City, South Dakota. On March 19, 1962, after motion to stay injunction had been denied by the district court, this court, on motion of defendants, appellants, ordered a stay of that portion of the lower court's order which required appellants to take affirmative action in removing or restoring the office to Mound City, pending determination of this appeal.

The crucial issue before us is whether the district court was vested with jurisdiction to entertain the action and to enter the order appealed from. To intelligently approach this question we deem it advisable to relate in some detail the history of this litigation.

The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committees of the Department of Agriculture, hereinafter referred to as ASC, were established by the 'Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act', 16 U.S.C.A. § 590a et seq., which directs the Secretary of Agriculture to administer the various programs through local and state committees. 16 U.S.C.A. § 590h(b). The Secretary 'shall make such regulations as are necessary relating to the selection and exercise of the functions of the respective committees, and to the administration, through such committees, of such programs' ibid, and the Secretary is to appoint members of the State Committee from among farmers who are legal residents of the State. Under the Act, local county committee members are to be selected by delegates to a county convention, which delegates are to be elected by cooperating farmers within the county area. In any county in which there is only one local committee, the committee shall also be the county committee. ibid.

The Secretary of Agriculture has promulgated regulations which, in effect, establish a 'hierarchy of command,' with general supervision being delegated to a Deputy Administrator who acts for the Secretary of Agriculture in the daily administration of the various agricultural programs. Section 7.20 of the Regulations, 7 C.F.R. § 7.20, specifically provides that the County Committee, 'subject to the general direction and supervision of the State committee, * * * shall be generally responsible for carrying out in the county the agricultural conservation program * * *' (Emphasis supplied); § 7.20a authorizes the county committee to 'Enter into leasing agreements for such office space as needed in accordance with prescribed procedures'; § 7.28 empowers the State Committee to suspend and remove any county committeeman for incompetence, malfeasance or non-feasance of duties or for seriously impeding the effectiveness of any agricultural program administered in the county. Any committee member so suspended has the right to appeal to the State Committee, and if dissatisfied with the decision of that agency, to the Deputy Administrator. 7 C.F.R. § 7.30. Section 7.32 of the Regulations provides that the office of the County Committee 'shall be located in a place selected by the county committee subject to the approval of the State committee.'

The filing of this suit was the outgrowth of what appears to be a bitter controversy over the relocation of the Campbell County ASC office. As the following summary of facts will disclose, the dispute was, in the main, between the State Committee members on the one

Page 572

hand the County Committee members and local citizens on the other.

Briefly stated, for over twenty years the office of the Campbell County ASC Committee had been located in Mound City, South Dakota, which is the county seat. For several years beginning in 1957, the physical aspects of the office had been the subject of unfavorable reports made by the Department of Agriculture. Specifically, the Department's position was that the office was too small, was without running water, or adequate sanitary and heating facilities. Many times the State Committee had urged the local people to find more suitable quarters. Early in 1961 a new State Committee assumed office and in June, 1961, its members met with the local committee, requesting that it obtain bids for new office space. The State Committee also met with the 'Mound City Boosters Club' as well as with residents of nearby Herreid, South Dakota, some eight miles distant, for the purpose of securing bids for office space. Officials and other citizens of Herreid were interested in having the county office moved to that city.

In July, 1961, the members of the Campbell County ASC Committee signed a lease for a new office building to be erected in Herreid. The same committee later attempted to rescind the lease, but the rescission was not approved by the State Committee. Two members of the three-man County Committee advised they would not remove the office to Herreid, and on September 1, 1961, the State Committee suspended these two members in accordance with applicable regulations for failure to perform duties and for impeding the administration of the programs. On September 15, 1961, trucks arrived in Mound City to transport office records and equipment to Herreid, but the transfer was physically prevented by a group of several hundred persons who opposed the move, among whom were the two alternate members of the County Committee who had taken office upon the suspension orders of September 1. These two members were also suspended by the State Committee. None of the four suspended members appealed from their suspension.

On the same day, September 15, 1961, the instant suit was filed. The plaintiffs in the action were four local farmers suing on behalf of themselves and 'every and all persons similarly situated who are farmers within Campbell County, South Dakota.' The defendants were the three members of the ASC State Committee of South Dakota and the State Administrative Officer for South Dakota. The complaint alleged that jurisdiction was based upon 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009, the 'Administrative Procedure Act.' In general, the complaint alleged that the defendants were acting unlawfully and beyond the authority of the statutes and regulations in effecting relocation of the county office. The relief requested was for a declaratory judgment holding invalid the relocation of the office and for an injunction restraining defendants under such declaratory judgment. On the same day a temporary restraining order was issued. Thereafter, and on September 23, 1961, pursuant to motion of plaintiffs, the court issued its preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from locating the Campbell County office at Herried, South Dakota.

On October 9, 1961, defendants' motion to dismiss the action was denied, but the court took under advisement a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. While this motion was pending,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • 286 F.Supp. 614 (D.Minn. 1968), 4-68-Civ. 94, Benson v. City of Minneapolis
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit District of Minnesota
    • 1 Julio 1968
    ...additional statutory standing since plaintiff must be an aggrieved party 'within the meaning of any relevant statute.' Duba v. Schuetzle, 303 F.2d 570 (8 Cir. 1962); Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. McKay, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 273, 225 F.2d 924 (D.C.Cir.1955); Harrison-Halsted Community Grou......
  • 484 F.Supp. 598 (D.S.D. 1980), Civ. 79-4031, Wollman v. Gross
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit District of South Dakota
    • 20 Febrero 1980
    ...as a government agency under the overriding authority and control of the Secretary of Agriculture and his appointees. Duba v. Schuetzle, 303 F.2d 570, 571 (8th Cir. 1962). Employees of the ASCS have consistently been recognized as federal employees under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Duba v.......
  • 277 F.Supp. 525 (C.D.Cal. 1967), 67-1225, Los Angeles Customs & Freight Brokers Ass'n, Inc. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit Central District of California
    • 7 Diciembre 1967
    ...principle that one must have suffered a 'legal wrong' in order to have standing to challenge the Government action. Duba v. Schuetzle, 303 F.2d 570, 574-575 (8th Cir. 1962); Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. McKay,96 U.S.App.D.C. 273, 225 F.2d 924, 931-932 (1955), cert. den. 350 U.S. 884......
  • 425 F.Supp. 331 (D.S.C. 1976), CA 75-1998, Morris v. Gressette
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit District of South Carolina
    • 12 Marzo 1976
    ...ruling. s 702, 5 U.S.C.; Conservation Council of N. C. v. Costanzo (4th Cir. 1974) 505 F.2d 498, 501; Duba v. Schuetzle (8th Cir. 1962) 303 F.2d 570, 574-5. However the Attorney General decides under s 5, that Page 339 cannot, as we have seen, bar the rights of the plaintiffs to vindicate t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • 286 F.Supp. 614 (D.Minn. 1968), 4-68-Civ. 94, Benson v. City of Minneapolis
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit District of Minnesota
    • 1 Julio 1968
    ...additional statutory standing since plaintiff must be an aggrieved party 'within the meaning of any relevant statute.' Duba v. Schuetzle, 303 F.2d 570 (8 Cir. 1962); Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. McKay, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 273, 225 F.2d 924 (D.C.Cir.1955); Harrison-Halsted Community Grou......
  • 484 F.Supp. 598 (D.S.D. 1980), Civ. 79-4031, Wollman v. Gross
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit District of South Dakota
    • 20 Febrero 1980
    ...as a government agency under the overriding authority and control of the Secretary of Agriculture and his appointees. Duba v. Schuetzle, 303 F.2d 570, 571 (8th Cir. 1962). Employees of the ASCS have consistently been recognized as federal employees under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Duba v.......
  • 277 F.Supp. 525 (C.D.Cal. 1967), 67-1225, Los Angeles Customs & Freight Brokers Ass'n, Inc. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit Central District of California
    • 7 Diciembre 1967
    ...principle that one must have suffered a 'legal wrong' in order to have standing to challenge the Government action. Duba v. Schuetzle, 303 F.2d 570, 574-575 (8th Cir. 1962); Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. McKay,96 U.S.App.D.C. 273, 225 F.2d 924, 931-932 (1955), cert. den. 350 U.S. 884......
  • 425 F.Supp. 331 (D.S.C. 1976), CA 75-1998, Morris v. Gressette
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit District of South Carolina
    • 12 Marzo 1976
    ...ruling. s 702, 5 U.S.C.; Conservation Council of N. C. v. Costanzo (4th Cir. 1974) 505 F.2d 498, 501; Duba v. Schuetzle (8th Cir. 1962) 303 F.2d 570, 574-5. However the Attorney General decides under s 5, that Page 339 cannot, as we have seen, bar the rights of the plaintiffs to vindicate t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results