Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Citation
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Parent Document
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 1992-01-24
Other Sections in This Document (42)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
Full Text
1,351 charsThere is similarly no basis for the district court’s conclusion that the Agency’s action ran “counter to the information provided.” Hussion, 741 F.Supp. at 1568. Although the appellees cite empirical data arguably undercutting the Agency’s apparent determination that the grievance and appeals procedure was duplicative and burdensome, none of the arguments before us vitiates the fact that the Agency had collected numerous complaints from FmHA project personnel expressing concerns about the difficulties and costs of the procedure in its pre-1983 form. The empirical data accumulated before the time of the proposed rulemaking do not disprove the premise of the FmHA change: duplication was inherent in the process because even with an administrative grievance procedure in place, either party could appeal the outcome of the FmHA grievance procedure to the courts. See 7 C.F.R. § 1944.558(b). As the agency has “suppl[ied] a reasoned analysis” supporting the elimination of du-plicative aspects of the process, Lloyd Noland Hosp. & Clinic v. Heckler, 762 F.2d 1561, 1567 (11th Cir.1985), neither this court nor the district court is authorized to “substitute its judgment for that of the agency” merely because evidence exists which conflicts with the Agency’s ultimate determination.9 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. at 2866.