U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1958

Willis A. Hawkins, Ralph White, Floyd Smith and George J. Smith v. State Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Committee

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided February 26, 1958 · Jones, Brown, Wisdom

252 F.2d 570; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3736 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Austin C. Wilson, Houston, Tex., Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates &. Jaworski, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for appellants., Bernard Cedarbaum, Melvin Richter, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Malcolm R. Wilkey, U. S. Atty., Sidney Farr, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., George Cochran Doub, Asst. Atty. Gen., Samuel D. Slade, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Thomas v. County Office Committee of Cameron County (District Court, S.D. Texas 1971)
Thomas v. County Office Committee (District Court, S.D. Texas 1971)
Donovan v. Public Service Co. of New Mexico (District Court, D. New Mexico 1984)
Nelson Weaver Realty Company, and Nelson Weaver Mortgage Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (5th Cir. 1962)
James Weir v. United States (8th Cir. 1962)
Graham v. Lawrimore (District Court, E.D. South Carolina 1960)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, cotton farmers of West Texas, brought an action in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas to review the apportionment made by the-appellees, the State Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Committee, to counties of the Texas acreage allotment for cotton for 1956 under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq. A declaratory judgment and injunctive relief were sought. The-District Court sustained the appellees and dismissed the complaint. Hawkins v. State Agriculture, etc. Committee, *571 D. C., 149 F.Supp. 681. From the order of dismissal an appeal is taken.

We are not in agreement as to whether Congress has precluded a judicial review of acreage apportionment among counties. Cf. 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1363-1367. We do, however, agree that the action of the appellees was within the power and discretion granted to them, that the procedural requirements were observed, and that no abuse of discretion was shown. Therefore the order of the District Court dismissing the complaint was properly entered and it is

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.