Cases from cite.case.law:

FRANK, R. P. c Jr. v. SACHEM SCHOOL DISTRICT, 84 F. Supp. 3d 172 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . . & Regs. tit. 8, § 279.10. . . .

MEMBERS OF BEEDE SITE GROUP, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN, MORTGAGE CORP., 968 F. Supp. 2d 455 (D.N.H. 2013)

. . . . § 279.10) (emphasis in original). . . .

L. K. Q, v. NORTHEAST SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 932 F. Supp. 2d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . documentary evidence if the [SRO] determines that such additional evidence is necessary.” 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 279.10 . . .

P. VIDRINE, Jr. v. UNITED STATES, 846 F. Supp. 2d 550 (W.D. La. 2011)

. . . (citing § 279.10). If used oil is intended for energy recovery, it is regulated by Part 279. . . . hazardous waste identified in sub-part C of part 261 of this chapter; or (ii) Except as specified in § 279.10 . . . mixture does not exhibit the characteristic of ignitability under § 261.21 of this chapter. 40 C.F.R. § 279.10 . . . Id. at § 279.10(b)(1)(ii). . . . Accordingly, 40 C.F.R. § 279.10(b)(2), supra, applies to mixtures of used oil and characteristic hazardous . . .

IDEAL INSTRUMENTS, INC. a v. RIVARD INSTRUMENTS, INC. a a, 245 F.R.D. 381 (N.D. Iowa 2007)

. . . that the moving party’s action was so frivolous as to merit sanctions, then contending that it took 279.10 . . . plaintiffs filed a patently frivolous complaint meriting sanctions under Rule 11 and contending that it took 279.10 . . .

M. SIMAAN, M. M. M. d b a v. M. VENEMAN,, 349 F. Supp. 2d 967 (M.D.N.C. 2004)

. . . as follows: Your attention is called to Section 14 of the Food Stamp Act (7 USC 2023) and to section 279.10 . . . of the regulations (7 CFR 279.10) with respect to your right to a judicial review of this determination . . .

PHANY POENG, v. UNITED STATES, 167 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001)

. . . . § 279.10(d). Defendant United States of America (“Defendant”) opposes. . . . See id.; see also 7 C.F.R. § 279.10(d). III. . . . See, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2021(c), 2023(a)(15); 7 C.F.R. § 279.10(a); Kim, 121 F.3d at 1272. . . .

LAZARO, d b a v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (M.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . . § 279.10(d). . . . It further points to 7 C.F.R. § 279.10(d) which provides: During the pendency of any judicial review, . . . The Undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the Court find that 7 C.F.R. § 279.10(d) was improvidently promulgated . . . States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service in Atlanta, Georgia, citing 7 C.F.R. § 279.10 . . .

AMEIRA CORPORATION, d b a s v. M. VENEMAN, P. In-, 169 F. Supp. 2d 432 (M.D.N.C. 2001)

. . . . § 279.10(d) violate the Fifth Amendment. . . . See 7 C.F.R. § 279.10(a). The court reviews the administrative action de novo. . . . See 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(18); 7 C.F.R. §§ 278.8(a), 279.10(d). . . . See 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(18); 7 C.F.R. § 279.10. . . . shall not be liable for the value of any sales lost during the disqualification period. 7 C.F.R. § 279.10 . . .

COSGROVE, a v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE NISKAYUNA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 175 F. Supp. 2d 375 (N.D.N.Y. 2001)

. . . Plaintiffs point out that 8 NYCRR 279.10 provides that the Decision of a State Review Officer "shall . . .

OBJIO, v. UNITED STATES, 113 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Mass. 2000)

. . . . § 279.10(a) (1999) of the Food Stamp Program Regulations (the “Regulations”) to appeal the decision . . . Section 279.10(a) of the Regulations provides that "a firm aggrieved by the determination of the administrative . . . district court for the district in which the owner resides or is engaged in business....” 7 C.F.R. § 279.10 . . .

CANAL BARGE COMPANY, INC. v. TORCO OIL COMPANY, 220 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 279.10. Two of its subsections provide in pertinent part: (a) Used Oil. . . .

BON SUPERMARKET DELI, Im Im, v. UNITED STATES, 87 F. Supp. 2d 593 (E.D. Va. 2000)

. . . . § 279.10. . . .

ILAIAN d. b. a. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND NUTRITION, 87 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (S.D. Cal. 2000)

. . . . § 279.10(d) which prohibits permanently disqualified food stamp program vendors from obtaining a stay . . . shall not be liable for the value of any sales lost during the disqualification period. 7 C.F.R. § 279.10 . . .

LEXINGTON SUPERMARKET, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 84 F. Supp. 2d 886 (S.D. Ohio 1999)

. . . . § 279.10. Lexington also claimed that • the Defendants failed to comply with 7 C.F.R. § 278.6. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. TRAN, d b a, 11 F. Supp. 2d 938 (S.D. Tex. 1998)

. . . . § 279.10(b). . . . , the Defendant is precluded from requesting a de novo trial from this Court pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 279.10 . . . Section 279.10(e) provides that a: [S]uit in the U.S. district court or in the State court, as the case . . . review officer in accordance with § 279.8(e); otherwise the determination shall be final.” 7 C.F.R. § 279.10 . . .

LANDSCAPE PROPERTIES, INC. C. PLLC, v. D. WHISENHUNT A. C., 127 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 1997)

. . . plaintiffs filed a patently frivolous complaint meriting sanctions under Rule 11 and contending that it took 279.10 . . .

LANDSCAPE PROPERTIES, INC. C. PLLC, v. D. WHISENHUNT A. C., 127 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 1997)

. . . plaintiffs filed a patently frivolous complaint meriting sanctions under Rule 11 and contending that it took 279.10 . . .

In SCOTT, III,, 209 B.R. 777 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1997)

. . . June 1996 rent $338.90 Rent for July 1,1996 — July 17,1996 Debts accrued after filing of petition: $279.10 . . . The remaining $279.10 of August rent is a post-petition debt. . . . This total was calculated by adding the post-petition rent accruing from August 18 to August 31 ($279.10 . . .

DARTRON CORPORATION, v. UNIROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., 917 F. Supp. 1173 (N.D. Ohio 1996)

. . . . § 279.10 (detailing a part of this presumption). . . .

HARRISON, d b a s v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,, 915 F. Supp. 115 (E.D. Mo. 1995)

. . . . § 279.10, provide for judicial review of a decision by the Food Stamp Review Officer. . . .

J M FOOD STORE, INC. d b a, v. UNITED STATES, 897 F. Supp. 1126 (N.D. Ill. 1995)

. . . . § 279.10(c), the Uptown Fruit Ranch is entitled to a trial de novo in this Court concerning the validity . . .

TOP NOTCH FOOD CENTER, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,, 885 F. Supp. 180 (N.D. Ill. 1995)

. . . . § 2023(a); 7 C.F.R. 279.10(a). . . .

EAST FOOD LIQUOR, INCORPORATED, v. UNITED STATES, 50 F.3d 1405 (7th Cir. 1995)

. . . . § 279.10, seeking de novo judicial review of administrative action taken by the Food and Nutrition . . .

KIRK CAPITAL CORPORATION, R. v. BAILEY L. R. H. KIRK CAPITAL CORP. a R. v. BAILEY L. H., 16 F.3d 1485 (8th Cir. 1994)

. . . Defense counsel stated that they had spent 279.10 hours on this case and they claimed an hourly rate . . . The trial court reduced the hours claimed from 279.10 to 179.10. . . . As a consequence it reduced the number of hours by 100 from 279.10 to 179.-10. . . . plaintiffs filed a patently frivolous complaint meriting sanctions under Rule 11 and contending that it took 279.10 . . .

DAVIS d b a v. UNITED STATES, 847 F. Supp. 120 (E.D. Wis. 1993)

. . . . § 279.10 against the United States of America seeking judicial review of the United States Department . . . Consequently, on December 18,1991, plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2028 and 7 C.F.R. § 279.10 . . . court entered an order granting plaintiffs stay of action, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2023 and 7 C.F.R. § 279.10 . . .

E. HOLMES d b a Bi- v. UNITED STATES, 815 F. Supp. 429 (M.D. Ala. 1993)

. . . . § 279.10(d). The defendants responded on February 22, 1993. . . . Plaintiff then filed a complaint in this court asking for a de novo review pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 279.10 . . . and an administrative stay pursuant to 279.10(d). . . . administrative action pending disposition of such trial or appeal. 7 U.S.C. 2023(a); see also 7 C.F.R. 279.10 . . .

M. REPOLA D. R. a v. MORBARK INDUSTRIES, INC. a a, 980 F.2d 938 (3d Cir. 1992)

. . . The jury awarded Repola $747,-279.10 on the common latfr negligence claim, less 30% for Repola’s own . . .

RAHIM A d b a v. UNITED STATES, 805 F. Supp. 676 (E.D. Wis. 1992)

. . . . § 279.10, seeking judicial review of the FNS’ decision withdrawing their authorization to participate . . . order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for stay of action, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2023 and 7 C.F.R. § 279.10 . . .

VARNADORE, d b a v. UNITED STATES, 785 F. Supp. 550 (D.S.C. 1991)

. . . . § 2023(a); 7 C.F.R. 279.10(c). . . .

C. HASKELL, Jr. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,, 930 F.2d 816 (10th Cir. 1991)

. . . . § 279.10. . . .

SHARIFI, v. UNITED STATES, 754 F. Supp. 1543 (N.D. Ala. 1991)

. . . Your attention is called to Section 14 of the Food Stamp Act and to Section 279.10 of the Regulations . . .

CALDERON, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE,, 756 F. Supp. 181 (D.N.J. 1990)

. . . letter specifically called Calderon’s attention to Section 14 of the Food Stamp Act and to Section 279.10 . . .

C. HASKELL, Jr. d b a v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,, 743 F. Supp. 765 (D. Kan. 1990)

. . . . § 279.10, of the decision of the United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service . . .

REASON, s v. M. HESLIN, U. S., 723 F. Supp. 1309 (S.D. Ind. 1989)

. . . . § 279.10(a) (1988) (emphasis added). . . . misses the thirty day deadline in which to sue the FNS, “the determination shall be final.” 7 C.F.R. § 279.10 . . .

HUBERMAN, v. PERALES, J. E., 884 F.2d 62 (2d Cir. 1989)

. . . See, e.g., §§ 276.7(j), 279.10(d), 51 Fed.Reg. 18,748 (1986) (judicial review provisions made retroactive . . .

J. SHOULDERS, t a v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE,, 878 F.2d 141 (4th Cir. 1989)

. . . Shoulders concedes that her action was untimely under § 2023(a) and § 279.10(a). . . . limitation on Shoulders’ ability to obtain judicial review stems from 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a) and 7 C.F.R. § 279.10 . . . Section 279.10(a) echoes § 2023(a) in providing that: A firm aggrieved by the determination of the food . . . A proper forum under § 2023(a) and § 279.10(a). . . . .

MARTIN S FOOD AND LIQUOR, INCORPORATED, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,, 702 F. Supp. 215 (N.D. Ill. 1988)

. . . . § 279.10. The complaint named the United States Department of Agriculture as the only defendant. . . . The case is dismissed with prejudice. . 7 C.F.R. § 279.10 essentially echoes this provision, without . . .

SIMS, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD NUTRITION SERVICE, SIMS, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD NUTRITION SERVICE,, 860 F.2d 858 (8th Cir. 1988)

. . . . § 279.10(c) (court may reduce penalty in accordance with the law and evidence). . . .

SIMS, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD NUTRITION SERVICE, 677 F. Supp. 1392 (E.D. Ark. 1988)

. . . . § 279.10(c), this Court is authorized to "enter a judgment or order which it determines is in accordance . . .

ABU- HALEB, INC. d b a v. UNITED STATES, 658 F. Supp. 453 (N.D. Ohio 1987)

. . . . § 279.10(a) (1986). . . .

In IBRAHIM d b a v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,, 650 F. Supp. 163 (N.D.N.Y. 1987)

. . . Section 279.10(a). The court reviews the administrative action de novo. Id.; F & G Superette v. . . . Section 279.10(d)) (requiring a showing of irreparable injury and likelihood of prevailing on the merits . . .

WILSON, d b a v. UNITED STATES, 651 F. Supp. 701 (E.D. Wis. 1986)

. . . . § 279.10(d), the Court entered an order staying further administrative action in this matter. . . .

DELLA VALLE d b a v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,, 619 F. Supp. 1297 (D.R.I. 1985)

. . . . § 279.10(d), conduces to the same view. . . . . § 279.10(d) (emphasis supplied). . . . The true measure of the deference due to the language of 7 C.F.R. § 279.10(d) depends upon how persuasive . . . The custom-tailored stay mechanism limned in § 2023(a) and pinpointed in 7 C.F.R. § 279.10(d) stands . . . the statutory mosaic as a whole, and the tenor of the Secretary’s implementing regulation, 7 C.F.R. § 279.10 . . .

GHOSEIN, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,, 616 F. Supp. 857 (E.D. Mo. 1985)

. . . . § 279.10(c). See also Abdel v. United States, 670 F.2d 73 (7th Cir.1982). . . .

FOUR STAR GROCERY, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 607 F. Supp. 1375 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)

. . . . § 2023 and 7 CFR § 279.10 to obtain judicial review of an order of the United States Department of . . .

GURTZWEILER, v. UNITED STATES, 601 F. Supp. 883 (N.D. Ohio 1985)

. . . . § 279.10(d). . . . Plaintiffs argue that 7 U.S.C. § 2023 and 7 C.F.R. § 279.10(d) contain no explicit language referring . . .

AMERICAN COMMUNITY STORES, INC. d b a a v. UNITED STATES, 579 F. Supp. 1164 (D. Neb. 1983)

. . . . § 278.6 and § 279.10. . . . As provided in C.F.R. § 279.10(c), the suit is a trial de novo in which the Court shall determine the . . .

FACTOR, v. UNITED STATES, 556 F. Supp. 567 (D. Mass. 1983)

. . . . § 279.10(d) (emphasis added). . . .

CERVECERIA INDIA, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-, 496 F. Supp. 1011 (D.P.R. 1980)

. . . . § 2023 and Section 279.10, of 7 C.F.R. . . .