U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 20— MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— GENERAL PROVISIONS › Part Part A— Enforcement Provisions

29 U.S.C. § 1852

Judicial enforcement

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Injunctive relief

The Secretary may petition any appropriate district court of the United States for temporary or permanent injunctive relief if the Secretary determines that this chapter, or any regulation under this chapter, has been violated.

(b) Control of civil litigation

Except as provided in section 518(a) of title 28, relating to litigation before the Supreme Court, the Solicitor of Labor may appear for and represent the Secretary in any civil litigation brought under this chapter, but all such litigation shall be subject to the direction and control of the Attorney General.

(Pub. L. 97–470, title V, § 502, Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2596.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 90 days from Jan. 14, 1983, see section 524 of Pub. L. 97–470, set out as a note under section 1801 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1987–2014 · leading case: Perez v. Howes, 7 F. Supp. 3d 715 (W.D. Mich. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Perez v. Howes, 7 F. Supp. 3d 715 (W.D. Mich. 2014). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1852 (a). Plaintiff requests an injunction prohibiting Defendant from violating the MSPA’s requirement for housing and from interfering with the DOL’s future investigations.”
Metzler v. Lykes Pasco, Inc., 972 F. Supp. 1438 (S.D. Fla. 1997). “This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1852 , authorizing the Secretary to petition any United States District Court for injunctive relief if it determines that the AWPA has been violated.”
Perez v. Blue Mountain Farms, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (E.D. Wash. 2013). “§ 1851 , or injunctive relief, 29 U.S.C. § 1852 (a). The Secretary argues that by barring investigators from Defendants’ blueberry fields and threatening to call local law enforcement, Defendants have violated the act by unlawfully impeding the Department’s investigation.”
McLaughlin v. Elsberry, Inc., 868 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1988). “29 U.S.C. § 1852 (a). Elsberry argues that because its resistance to the DOL’s entry onto its fields was not forcible, it did not amount to unlawful resistance, 29 U.”
Brock v. Elsberry, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 359 (M.D. Fla. 1987). · cites it 2× “FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The Secretary of Labor brought this action seeking an injunction pursuant to § 502(a) of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act of 1983 [ 29 U.S.C. § 1852 (a) ], hereinafter MSPA or the Act, alleging that at all times pertinent hereto…”
Application of the Davis-Bacon Act to Urban Dev. Projects That Receive Partial Fed. Funding (OLC 1987). “§ 663 (representation of the Secretary of Labor in occupational safety and health litigation); 29 U.S.C. § 1852 (b) (litigation for the protection of migrant and seasonal workers); 30 U.”
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.