# Delores J. Kenney v. Daniel Glickman

> Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · September 30, 1996 · 96 F.3d 1118

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9816628

## Case

- **Full name:** Delores J. KENNEY, Plaintiff/Appellant, Rosemary Behrens; Carol Hans; Madeline Meyer; David Nichols; Wayne Newton, Plaintiffs, Irvin Fox; Skip Numrich; Gerald Timmerman; Larry Martin; James Willrett; James Scott; H.T. Ringling; Richard Bell; Jan Houck; Robert Perry; Garland Dahl; John Haverhale; Jack Knirk; Bill Long; Mike Judy; Russ Dodge, Jr.; Phil Van Horne, Plaintiffs/Appellants, Robert Rebholtz, Plaintiff, Bub Miller; Scott Adamson; Paul Genho; Jim Keller; Earnie Reeves; Mark Armentrout, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Daniel GLICKMAN, Secretary of Agriculture, Defendant/Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 30, 1996
- **Citations:** 96 F.3d 1118
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McMILLIAN
- **Judges:** McMillian, Memillian, Beam, Perry
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9816628

## Opinion text

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent in part. I would affirm the district court’s dismissal of appellants’ claim in Count I of the complaint. In my opinion, the Secretary’s decisions not to enforce a zero tolerance standard for poultry process defects and to allow water washing of poultry contaminants are nonreviewable enforcement decisions under Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-32 , 105 S.Ct. 1649, 1655-56 , 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985). However, for the reasons stated in Part V of the majority opinion, I agree that the district court’s dismissal of appellants’ claim in Count II of the complaint (concerning the water absorption regulations) should be reversed, and that claim remanded for review.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9816628. Public record. Not legal advice.