Persons engaged in the fishery industry, as fishermen, catching, collecting, or cultivating aquatic products, or as planters of aquatic products on public or private beds, may act together in associations, corporate or otherwise, with or without capital stock, in collectively catching, producing, preparing for market, processing, handling, and marketing in interstate and foreign commerce, such products of said persons so engaged.
The term “aquatic products” includes all commercial products of aquatic life in both fresh and salt water, as carried on in the several States, the District of Columbia, the several Territories of the United States, the insular possessions, or other places under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Such associations may have marketing agencies in common, and such associations and their members may make the necessary contracts and agreements to effect such purposes: Provided, however, That such associations are operated for the mutual benefit of the members thereof, and conform to one or both of the following requirements:
First. That no member of the association is allowed more than one vote because of the amount of stock or membership capital he may own therein; or
Second. That the association does not pay dividends on stock or membership capital in excess of 8 per centum per annum.
and in any case to the following:
Third. That the association shall not deal in the products of nonmembers to an amount greater in value than such as are handled by it for members.
Notes of Decisions
In re Fresh & Process Potatoes Antitrust Litig., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D. Idaho 2011).
· cites it 2× “Instead, the case dealt with the Fishermen’s Collective Marketing Act (“FCMA”) ( 15 U.S.C. § 521 ), which states: Persons engaged in the fishery industry, as fishermen, catching, collecting, or cultivating aquatic products, or as planters of aquatic products on public or private…”
Hawaiian Tuna Packers, Ltd. v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 72 F. Supp. 562 (D. Haw. 1947).
· cites it 2× “Finally as a ground of the motion, defendants say that the suit is not maintainable because the Sherman Act is inapplicable to fishermen organized as a cooperative marketing agency under the provisions of 15 U.S.C.A. § 521 et seq. Assuming the applicability of this statute to…”
United States v. Hinote, 823 F. Supp. 1350 (S.D. Miss. 1993).
· cites it 2× “§ 291 , and/or the Fisherman’s Collective Marketing Act (Fisherman’s Act), 15 U.S.C. § 521 . 3 Essentially, the defendant’s position is that, in addition to being catfish processors, Delta Pride and each of the alleged co-conspirators were also engaged in catfish farming and/or…”
Cape Shore Fish Co., Inc. v. The United States, 330 F.2d 961 (Ct. Cl. 1964).
“One of the defenses raised was that the State had no jurisdiction to try defendants, since their activities were covered by the terms of the Federal Fishermen’s Cooperative Marketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 521 , 522 (1958), which permitted “[pjersons engaged in the fishery industry,…”
Patrick McHugh v. United States, 230 F.2d 252 (1st Cir. 1956).
“Nor need we consider whether the Fisheries Co-operative Marketing Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 521 , 522, is applicable to this case for the reason that it could not, in any event, afford appellant exemption from the provisions of the anti-trust laws.”
Atl. Fishermen's Union, Etc. v. United States, 197 F.2d 519 (1st Cir. 1952).
“It was also claimed that the subject matter of the indictment is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior under the Fisheries Co-operative Marketing Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 521 , 522, which to that extent has superseded the Sherman Act.”
Hinton v. Columbia River Packers Ass'n, Inc., 131 F.2d 88 (9th Cir. 1942).
“Is the Union exempt from the provisions of the anti-trust laws by reason of the statutes authorizing fishermen’s cooperatives, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 521 , 522? Without going into detail, we believe United States v.”
Columbia River Packers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hinton, 34 F. Supp. 970 (D. Or. 1939).
“Zimmerman of the Oregon State Circuit Court in a case between the same parties and involving the same questions, heard by him several years ago, The union’s brief refers to the union as a “trade association”, and defendant union relies for further justification of its challenged…”
Northland Cranberries, Inc. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 382 F. Supp. 2d 221 (D. Mass. 2004).
“” 15 U.S.C. § 521 . (The statute defines “aquatic products” as “all commercial products of aquatic life in both fresh and salt water, as carried on in the several States, the District of Columbia, the several Territories of the United States, the insular possessions, or other…”
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.