Minnesota Milk Producers Ass'n v. Glickman

Decision Date20 November 1998
Docket Number97-4224M,97-4226M,97-4220M,97-4331M,Nos. 97-4145M,97-4334M,97-4241M,97-4361MN and 97-4362MN,s. 97-4145M
Citation153 F.3d 632
PartiesMINNESOTA MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, a non-profit Minnesota corporation, individually, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; Bill Dropik, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Chester Kolstad, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Greg Radermacher, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Arnold Ness, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Fredrick J. Bianchi, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Marlon Restad, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Delbert Mandelko, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; John Fischer, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Lee Johnston, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Leslie Kyllo, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; James Muzzy, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Dan GLICKMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. MINNESOTA MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, a non-profit Minnesota corporation, individually, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; Bill Dropik, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Chester Kolstad, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Greg Radermacher, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Arnold Ness, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Fredrick J. Bianchi, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Marlon Restad, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Delbert Mandelko, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; John Fischer, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Lee Johnston, individually, on behalf
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
Delbert Mandelko, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; John Fischer, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Lee Johnston, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Leslie Kyllo individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; James Muzzy, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Appellees v LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY; Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries; Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission; Colorado Department of Agriculture; Georgia Department of Agriculture; Kentucky Department of Agriculture; Maine Department of Agriculture Food and Rural Resources; Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture; Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce; New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets and Food; New Mexico Department of Agriculture; North Carolina Department of Agriculture; South Carolina Department of Agriculture; State of Vermont; and Washington Department of Agriculture, Appellants.

Jeffrey A. Clair, Washington, DC, argued (Frank W. Hunger, David L. Lillehaug, Stephen W. Preston, and Barbara C. Biddle, on the brief), for Dan Glickman.

Marvin Beshore, Harrisburg, PA, argued, for National Farmers Organization and Ass'n of Dairy Cooperatives.

Benjamin F. Yale, Waynesville, OH, argued (Kristine H. Reed, on the brief), for Premier Milk Producers, Lone Star Milk Producers, Dairy Producers of New Mexico and Texas Ass'n of Dairymen.

David McFadden, New Orleans, LA, argued (C. James Gelpi and Dan Zimmerman, on the brief), for Louisiana Dept. of Agriculture, et al.

Lynn Ann Hayes, St. Paul, MN, argued (Karen R. Krub, on the brief), for Minnesota Milk Producers Ass'n.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, 1 Chief Judge, McMILLIAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

The Minnesota Milk Producers Association (MMPA) challenges the Secretary of Agriculture's system for pricing "Class I" milk under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq. (1994). The District Court held that one aspect of the pricing system--the "diff...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Kakaygeesick v. Salazar
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 4 Septiembre 2009
    ...United States Dep't of Interior, supra, 423 F.3d at 799, and we have found no "clear error of judgment." Minnesota Milk Producers Ass'n v. Glickman, 153 F.3d 632, 643 (8th Cir.1998), cert. denied sub nom., Texas Ass'n of Dairymen v. Minnesota Milk Producers Ass'n, 526 U.S. 1130, 119 S.Ct. 1......
  • Enyeart v. Minnesota, No. Civ.05-1291 (MJD/AJB).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 6 Enero 2006
    ...or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion." Id. See also Minnesota Milk Producers Ass'n v. Glickman, 153 F.3d 632, 642 (8th Cir.1998) (noting that an agency's decision to do nothing is entitled to more deference than a decision to act). The de......
  • Arkansas Dairy Coop., Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 19 Septiembre 2008
    ...mandate that every variable or input used to calculate that price also reflect those economic factors. See Minn. Milk Producers Ass'n v. Glickman, 153 F.3d 632, 645 (8th Cir.1998) ("It is the total Class I price ... and not just the differential, that must satisfy the statute."). The Eighth......
  • Chong Toua Vue v. Barr
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 27 Marzo 2020
    ...actions"). This is particularly true for agency in action, which is generally unreviewable. See Minn. Milk Producers Ass'n v. Glickman , 153 F.3d 632, 642 (8th Cir. 1998) ; see also Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs , 482 U.S. at 283, 107 S.Ct. 2360 (explaining that a prosecutor's mistaken belief t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT