7 CFR 273.16 - Disqualification for intentional Program violation

Cite as7 CFR 273.16
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
59 practice notes
  • Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,
    • United States
    • Federal Register January 17, 2001
    • January 17, 2001
    ...under OMB No. 0584-0479. The information collection burden associated with provisions in this rule which affect the regulations at 7 CFR 273.16, the Demand Letter for Over Issuance, is approved under OMB 0584-0492. The information collection burden that is associated with the provisions in ......
  • Food stamp program: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconcilation Act; implementation— Personal responsibility provisions,
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 17, 1999
    • December 17, 1999
    ...No. 0584-0479. The information collection burden that is associated with proposed provisions in this rule which affect the regulations at 7 CFR 273.16, the Demand Letter for Over Issuance, is approved under OMB In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Food and Nutrition S......
  • Food Stamp Program: Certification of eligible households,
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 16, 2004
    • April 16, 2004
    ...7 CFR 273.7; The State agency has determined that a household member has committed an intentional Program violation in accordance with 7 CFR 273.16, or the State agency is closing the household's TANF case in response to information indicating the household failed to comply with food stamp ......
  • Part III
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 16, 2004
    • April 16, 2004
    ...7 CFR 273.7; The State agency has determined that a household member has committed an intentional Program violation in accordance with 7 CFR 273.16, or the State agency is closing the household's TANF case in response to information indicating the household failed to comply with food stamp ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
37 cases
  • Williams v. Berry, Civil Action No. 3:13CV38TSL–JMR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Mississippi
    • July 19, 2013
    ...court described as “[t]he careful limitation on information disclosure throughout the regulatory structure, the qualified language of 7 C.F.R. § 273.16(e)(2), and the absence of any reference to providing case files to prosecuting authorities anywhere else in the regulatory structure....” R......
  • Ortiz v. Eichler, Civ. A. No. 84-16 MMS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • July 5, 1985
    ...additional rights, presumably because intentional program violators are subject to punitive measures. Compare 7 C.F.R. § 273.15 with 7 C.F.R. § 273.16. In Delaware, a DES caseworker makes the initial decision to deny an application for public assistance benefits or to reduce or terminate ex......
  • Gonzalez v. State, No. 416, 2018
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • March 12, 2019
    ...case at basically the value of the overissued benefits.78 If anything, this provision supports the argument for preemption.Nor does 7 C.F.R § 273.16(g)(1)(ii) suggest that the State can proceed against a SNAP beneficiary in both an administrative disqualification hearing and a civil action ......
  • Thomas v. North Carolina Dept. of Human Resources, No. COA95-1310
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • December 17, 1996
    ...by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to 7 U.S.C.A.2013(c) (1991), however, postpone the penalty period mandated by the statute. 7 C.F.R. 273.16(e)(8)(iii) (1992) provides that "[i]f the individual is not eligible for the Program at the time the disqualification period is to begin, the p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Accused Poor.
    • United States
    • Social Justice Vol. 44 Nbr. 2-3, June 2018
    • June 22, 2018
    ...than the criminal context's "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard; here, "clear and convincing evidence" creates legal culpability [7 CFR 273.16(e)(6)]. There is also more legal leeway for welfare rule enforcement practices. Wyman v. James (1971) declared announced home visits by social work......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT