Glorious Church of God in Christ v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the Second Circuit had not decided which party bears the burden of proof at a trial de novo but assuming the plaintiff has the burden
• holding that, when reviewing the sanction imposed by the Agency, a court assesses “whether the Secretary’s action was arbitrary or capricious, i.e., whether it was unwarranted in law or without justification in fact” (quotations and citation omitted)
• finding “no merit in [the plaintiff’s] arguments that the administrative process violated its due process rights”
• affirming FNS’s disqualification of firm based on, among other evidence, “rapid successive purchases involving the same household” and “relatively high-dollar transactions given [plaintiffs] size and inventory’
• affirming grant of summary judgment where store’s accountant identified only three transactions to support the claim “that the suspect transactions were the result of customers buying goods on credit”
• affirming disqualification and noting that “[a]lthough FNS advised [the plaintiff] of its option to request a monetary penalty and establish its eligibility for one, [the plaintiff] never made such a request to the agency”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).