Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementplaintiffstatuteappealcompliancejudicial reviewappellant
settlementplaintiffcomplianceappellant

Related Cases

State ex rel. Douglas v. Wiener, 220 Neb. 502, 370 N.W.2d 720, 26 Ed. Law Rep. 457
View Case »
Hubbard v. Hubbard, 690 N.E.2d 1219
View Case »
Vom Lehn v. Astor Art Galleries, Ltd., 86 Misc.2d 1, 380 N.Y.S.2d 532, 18 UCC Rep.Serv. 861
View Case »
In re Bell & Beckwith, 77 B.R. 606
View Case »
Tull v. United States, 476 U.S. 1139, 106 S.Ct. 2244 (Mem), 90 L.Ed.2d 691
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gore, Inc. v. Glickman, 137 F.3d 863

Facts

Gore, Inc. paid $366,772.38 into the producer-settlement fund in 1990-91 based on an erroneous determination by the Secretary of Agriculture. After a lengthy administrative and judicial review process, the Court of Appeals determined that the Secretary's decision was arbitrary and capricious, leading to a ruling in favor of Gore. Following this, Gore sought to amend the judgment to include prejudgment interest on the refund, which the district court denied, prompting this appeal.

Gore, Inc. paid $366,772.38 into the producer-settlement fund in 1990-91 based on an erroneous determination by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Issue

Whether Plaintiff–Appellant Gore, Inc. is entitled to prejudgment interest on a refund it recovered in Gore, Inc. v. Espy.

Whether Plaintiff–Appellant Gore, Inc. is entitled to prejudgment interest on a refund it recovered in Gore, Inc. v. Espy.

Rule

The availability of prejudgment interest under the Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act (AMAA) is a question of law, and courts look to whether an award of such interest would further the congressional policies of the specific statute.

The availability of prejudgment interest under the AMAA is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo.

Analysis

The court concluded that awarding prejudgment interest would further the congressional policies of the AMAA by compensating handlers for the time value of money and encouraging prompt compliance with payment orders. The court emphasized that denying prejudgment interest would undermine the fairness objectives of the AMAA and the economic incentives for handlers to comply with the Secretary's orders.

The court concluded that awarding prejudgment interest would further the congressional policies of the AMAA by compensating handlers for the time value of money and encouraging prompt compliance with payment orders.

Conclusion

The judgment of the district court was reversed, and the case was remanded to amend the judgment to include an appropriate award of prejudgment interest.

The judgment of the district court was reversed, and the case was remanded to amend the judgment to include an appropriate award of prejudgment interest.

Who won?

Gore, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that it was entitled to recover prejudgment interest on the payments made into the producer-settlement fund based on an erroneous order from the Secretary of Agriculture.

Gore, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that it was entitled to recover prejudgment interest on the payments made into the producer-settlement fund based on an erroneous order from the Secretary of Agriculture.

You must be