42 U.S.C. § 1752

Authorization of appropriations; “Secretary” defined

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

For each fiscal year, there is authorized to be appropriated, out of money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to enable the Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter referred to as “the Secretary”) to carry out the provisions of this chapter, other than sections 1761 and 1766 of this title. Appropriations to carry out the provisions of this chapter and of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 [42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.] for any fiscal year are authorized to be made a year in advance of the beginning of the fiscal year in which the funds will become available for disbursement to the States. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds appropriated to carry out the provisions of this chapter and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 shall remain available for the purposes of the Act for which appropriated until expended.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2024 · leading case: Blair v. City of Evansville, Ind., 361 F. Supp. 2d 846 (S.D. Ind. 2005).
Blair v. City of Evansville, Ind., 361 F. Supp. 2d 846 (S.D. Ind. 2005). “42 U.S.C. § 1752 . 5 . The Court notes that Blair sought summary judgment on his constitutional claims against Evansville as well as the individual Defendants.”
Davis v. Robinson, 346 F. Supp. 847 (D.R.I. 1972). “42 U.S. C.A. § 1752 (1970). While participating states must allocate three dollars to every federal dollar, the 1970 amendment requires that a certain percentage of state matching funds must come from state revenues rather than from sums collected from school children.”
United States v. Groseclose (D.D.C. 2024). “” 42 U.S.C. § 1752 (c)(1). The government resists this outcome with a few textual points of its own.”
Ctr. for Sci. in the Pub. Interest v. Perdue (D. Maryland 2020). “Because USDA is charged with administering the school lunch and breakfast programs, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 1752 , 1758(a)(1)(B), (k)(1)(B), the Court will review its construction of these statutes under the familiar two-step process of Chevron, 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.