- 7 -
solely for purposes of deciding the motion and are not findings
of fact for this case. See Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner,
supra at 520.
Petitioner makes a novel but flawed contention in his effort
to withstand summary disposition. He argues that, because this
case involves only a record review, the use of summary
disposition is inappropriate and improper. He cites Olenhouse v.
CCC, 42 F.3d 1560, 1579-1580 (10th Cir. 1994), as support for his
argument.
In Olenhouse, various wheat producers had sued the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)
challenging ASCS’s decision to award reduced deficiency payments
for the producers’ wheat under a Federal price support program.
The producers claimed, among other things, that the ASCS’s action
was arbitrary and capricious in that it was the product of an
inadequate administrative appeals process and not supported by
substantial evidence in the administrative record. Id. at 1564.
The producers had filed an administrative appeal and received an
adverse determination, which they appealed to the State ASCS
committee and then to the Deputy Administrator, State and County
Operations (DASCO). Throughout the appeal process, the producers
unsuccessfully attempted to obtain information regarding the
basis for the reductions imposed on them and the way the
reductions were calculated. Without making any findings of fact
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008