Curl v. Metoxen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that requirement of “exhaust[ing] all administrative appeal procedures . . . before [a] person may bring an action in a court” was not jurisdictional
• holding that the 1 exhaustion requirement of 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e) is not jurisdictional and excusing the 2 plaintiffs’ noncompliance
• holding that a claim is collateral “if it is not bound up with the merits so closely that the court’s decision would constitute interference with the agency process” (cleaned up)
• holding a case was not moot where, “[a]lthough the Secretary argues in her brief that she has now changed her policy . . . the plaintiffs have presented additional evidence suggesting that local offices have not followed the new poli- cy”
• excusing a failure to exhaust under § 6912(e) where the suit alleged a constitutional claim that was colorable, collateral to the substantive claim, and its resolution would not serve the purposes of exhaustion because exhaustion would be futile
• excusing a failure to exhaust under § 6912(e) where the suit alleged a constitutional claim that was colorable, collateral to the substantive claim, and its resolution would not serve the purposes of exhaustion because exhaustion would be futile

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).