Roy Franklin Tart v. Braswell Smith, Luby Edwards and Keith Williams (Review Committee)

Fourth Circuit

Roy Franklin Tart v. Braswell Smith, Luby Edwards and Keith Williams (Review Committee)

327 F.2d 496, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6610

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 1964

Docket9231_1

StatusPublished

This text of 327 F.2d 496 (Roy Franklin Tart v. Braswell Smith, Luby Edwards and Keith Williams (Review Committee)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roy Franklin Tart v. Braswell Smith, Luby Edwards and Keith Williams (Review Committee), 327 F.2d 496, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6610 (4th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this action against the members of the Local Review Committee, a tobacco farmer undertook to contest his allotment for 1963 and the validity of certain penalties which had been imposed upon him in previous years for violations of statutes and regulations governing the planting and marketing of tobacco. The differences between the parties have nothing to do with the determination of the 1963 quota, but center instead around the use of this land in 1938, which influenced the determination of the quota in prior years and the imposition of penalties for violations in 1960 and 1961.

These questions are not open for judicial review in collateral proceedings. The evidence appears to amply support the fact findings of the Committee, but, since they relate entirely to years long since closed, they are not subject to judicial review. McDougald v. Local Review Committee, D.C.E.D.N.C., 149 F.Supp. 402; United States v. Stangland, 7 Cir., 242 F.2d 843.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this action against the members of the Local Review Committee, a tobacco farmer undertook to contest his allotment for 1963 and the validity of certain penalties which had been imposed upon him in previous years for violations of statutes and regulations governing the planting and marketing of tobacco. The differences between the parties have nothing to do with the determination of the 1963 quota, but center instead around the use of this land in 1938, which influenced the determination of the quota in prior years and the imposition of penalties for violations in 1960 and 1961.

These questions are not open for judicial review in collateral proceedings. The evidence appears to amply support the fact findings of the Committee, but, since they relate entirely to years long since closed, they are not subject to judicial review. McDougald v. Local Review Committee, D.C.E.D.N.C., 149 F.Supp. 402; United States v. Stangland, 7 Cir., 242 F.2d 843.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 F.2d 496, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-franklin-tart-v-braswell-smith-luby-edwards-and-keith-williams-ca4-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack