C.F.R. » Title 7 » CHAPTER X—AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS; MILK), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE › PART 1126—MILK IN THE SOUTHWEST MARKETING AREA › subpart ECFRe2f039394858d9b — Subpart—Order Regulating Handling

7 C.F.R. § 1126.4

Plant

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

See § 1000.4.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1996–1998 · leading case: Gore, Inc., D/B/A Pure Milk Co. v. Michael Espy, as Sec'y of U.S. Dep't of Agric., 87 F.3d 767 (5th Cir. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gore, Inc., D/B/A Pure Milk Co. v. Michael Espy, as Sec'y of U.S. Dep't of Agric., 87 F.3d 767 (5th Cir. 1996). · cites it 6× “, appeals an adverse summary judgment sustaining a ruling by the Secretary of Agriculture that Gore’s delivery of packaged milk products to a customer’s distribution center constituted a shipment to a milk plant under 7 C.F.R. § 1126.4 . Concluding that the Secretary’s…”
Gore Inc. v. Glickman, 137 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 1998). “Not until this Court’s decision in July, 1996, which held that the Secretary’s determination under 7 C.F.R. § 1126.4 was arbitrary, capricious, and plainly inconsistent with the text of the regulation, was Gore’s position finally vindicated.”
Gore, Inc. v. Espy (5th Cir. 1996). · cites it 6× “, appeals an adverse summary judgment sustaining a ruling by the Secretary of Agriculture that Gore's delivery of packaged milk products to a customer's distribution center constituted a shipment to a milk plant under 7 C.F.R. § 1126.4 . Concluding that the Secretary's…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.