C.F.R. » Title 7 » CHAPTER I—AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (STANDARDS, INSPECTIONS, MARKETING PRACTICES), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE › SUBCHAPTER A—COMMODITY STANDARDS AND CONTAINER REQUIREMENTS › PART 29—TOBACCO INSPECTION › Subpart C—Standards

7 C.F.R. § 29.3050

Quality

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

A division of a group or the second factor of a grade, based on the relative degree of one or more elements of quality in tobacco.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 47 FR 51722, Nov. 17, 1982, and at 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1978–1982 · leading case: Mitchell v. Block, 551 F. Supp. 1011 (W.D. Va. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mitchell v. Block, 551 F. Supp. 1011 (W.D. Va. 1982). “7 C.F.R. § 29.3050 . “No-Grade” is a misnomer in that it does not mean that the tobacco is ungraded; rather, “no-grade” or “No-G” describes a condition of the tobacco.”
J. W. Barton, Jr. v. Robert Bergland, Sec'y of Agric., 579 F.2d 1009 (6th Cir. 1978). “, violate the purpose of the Act, are an unconstitutional usurpation by the Secretary of powers delegated to Congress by Article I of the Constitution, and violate appellants’ due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.”
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.