21 U.S.C. § 671

Inspection services; refusal or withdrawal; hearing; business unfitness based upon certain convictions; other provisions for withdrawal of services unaffected; responsible connection with business; finality of Secretary’s actions; judicial review; record

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 21 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Secretary may (for such period, or indefinitely, as he deems necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter) refuse to provide, or withdraw, inspection service under subchapter I of this chapter with respect to any establishment if he determines, after opportunity for a hearing is accorded to the applicant for, or recipient of, such service, that such applicant or recipient is unfit to engage in any business requiring inspection under subchapter I because the applicant or recipient, or anyone responsibly connected with the applicant or recipient, has been convicted, in any Federal or State court, of (1) any felony, or (2) more than one violation of any law, other than a felony, based upon the acquiring, handling, or distributing of unwholesome, mislabeled, or deceptively packaged food or upon fraud in connection with transactions in food. This section shall not affect in any way other provisions of this chapter for withdrawal of inspection services under subchapter I from establishments failing to maintain sanitary conditions or to destroy condemned carcasses, parts, meat or meat food products.

For the purpose of this section a person shall be deemed to be responsibly connected with the business if he was a partner, officer, director, holder, or owner of 10 per centum or more of its voting stock or employee in a managerial or executive capacity.

The determination and order of the Secretary with respect thereto under this section shall be final and conclusive unless the affected applicant for, or recipient of, inspection service files application for judicial review within thirty days after the effective date of such order in the appropriate court as provided in section 674 of this title. Judicial review of any such order shall be upon the record upon which the determination and order are based.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1981–2001 · leading case: Marshall Chernin v. Richard E. Lyng, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marshall Chernin v. Richard E. Lyng, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture (1989) ca8 · cites it 5× “Under the authority of 21 U.S.C. § 671 (a), the USDA refused to provide Federal Beef with inspection services required by law (without which meatpackers may not operate) until Federal Beef agreed to sever its connection with Chernin.”

Utica Packing Company and David Fenster v. John R. Block, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture (1986) ca6 “Section 401 of the Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. § 671 , empowers the Secretary to remove a person or firm deemed unfit to deal with meat food products by withdrawing the inspection service: The Secretary may (for such period, or indefinitely, as he deems necessary to…”

United States v. Kent J. Brummels (1994) ca8 “See 21 U.S.C. § 671 (1988). 5 . The district court adopted the factual findings and recommendations of the presentence investigation report and applied a two-level enhancement to Brummels' offense level for an abuse of a position of public trust.”

Ganadera Industrial, S.A. v. John R. Block, Secretary of Agriculture (1984) cadc · cites it 2× “GISA maintained that the Secretary exceeded his authority under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and applicable regulations, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and also violated appellant’s right to advance notice and a hearing under the due process clause and under section 401…”

Wyszynski Provision Co. v. Secretary of Agriculture (1982) paed · cites it 3× “The statute, 21 U.S.C. § 671 , provides in relevant part: The Secretary may (for such period, or indefinitely, as he deems necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Act .”

Melvyn Siegel v. Richard E. Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture and United States of (1988) cadc “§ 467 (government may withdraw, indefinitely, inspection services to entities in poultry industry where persons "responsibly connected” to entity are found to have violated food laws); 21 U.S.C. § 671 (same — meat food products industry); 21 U.”

Toscony Provision Co., Inc. v. Block (1982) njd · cites it 6× “Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 671 , the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to refuse to provide or withdraw federal meat inspection services from a recipient upon a finding that the recipient is unfit to conduct any business which requires inspection.”

Utica Packing Co. v. Bergland (1981) mied · cites it 7× “Plaintiffs’ complaint was filed July 25, 1980, for review of the final decision of the United States Department of Agriculture of June 25, 1980, that federal meat inspection services would be withdrawn from plaintiff Utica Packing Company pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 671 , unless its…”

Holloway v. Conger (1990) ca8 “Bowing to severe economic pressure, Federal Beef settled its dispute with the USDA by agreeing in a Consent Decision that Federal Beef would permanently divest Chernin of any connection to its operations and deny him access to its plant within nine months after the commencement…”

Windy City Meat Co., Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture (1991) ca7 “21 U.S.C. § 671 (a) (1988). 5 .The statute states that: (a) The Secretary may (for such period, or indefinitely, as he deems necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter) refuse to provide, or withdraw, inspection service under this chapter with respect to any…”

Federal Beef Processors, Inc. v. Lyng (1987) ndd · cites it 2× “21 U.S.C.S. § 671 (c) (Supp.1987) (emphasis added).”

Kluver v. Sheets (2001) ca9 “Plaintiff had not yet demonstrated that he was entitled to inspection services; the request for additional information was authorized by law; and, were the Board eventually to deny Plaintiff inspection services because of his connection to a felon, it would be required to give…”

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.