42 U.S.C. § 1771
Congressional declaration of purpose
In recognition of the demonstrated relationship between food and good nutrition and the capacity of children to develop and learn, based on the years of cumulative successful experience under the national school lunch program with its significant contributions in the field of applied nutrition research, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress that these efforts shall be extended, expanded, and strengthened under the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture as a measure to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s children, and to encourage the domestic consumption of agricultural and other foods, by assisting States, through grants-in-aid and other means, to meet more effectively the nutritional needs of our children.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case: Dr. Ronnie Rogers v. Dr. M. L. Brockette, 588 F.2d 1057 (5th Cir. 1979).
Dr. Ronnie Rogers v. Dr. M. L. Brockette, 588 F.2d 1057 (5th Cir. 1979). “See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1771 , 1779. Participating schools must agree to abide by several regulations governing the quality and availability of the breakfasts.”
Banco De Ponce v. Hinsdale Supermarket Corp., 663 F. Supp. 813 (E.D.N.Y 1987). “That program, sometimes called the WIC Program because it benefits women, infants and children, is part of the Child Nutrition Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1771 , et seq., and is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrí *815 tion Service pursuant to…”
Nat'l Soft Drink Ass'n v. John R. Block, Sec'y, Dep't of Agric., 721 F.2d 1348 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “885 (1966), 42 U.S.C. § 1771 , et seq. . Pub.L. 91-248, § 8 , 84 Stat.”
Bobbie M. Smith v. Tipton Cty. Bd. of Educ., 916 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2019). “) and the federal Child Nutrition Act of 1966 ( 42 U.S.C. § 1771 et seq. ), and other specific federal statutes that are separate and apart from the Food and Nutrition Act.”
Horner v. Kentucky High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 43 F.3d 265 (6th Cir. 1994). “and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1771 et seq.)) 704 Ky.Admin.”
Cmty. Nutrition Inst. v. Bergland, 493 F. Supp. 488 (D.D.C. 1980). “§ 1751 (1976); Child Nutrition Act of 1966, § 2, 42 U.S.C. § 1771 (1976). 3 . See, e. g., H.”
Noyola v. Bd. of Educ. of Chicago, 671 N.E.2d 802 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “The legislative scheme allocates chapter 1 monies to public schools according to a weighing factor based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced price lunches under the Federal Child Nutrition Act of 1966 ( 42 U.S.C. § 1771 et seq. (1988)) and the Federal…”
JOM CORP. v. Dept. of Health of State of NY, 697 F. Supp. 720 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “Federal Child Nutrition Act of 1966 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1771 et seq. Families eligible for participation in the WIC program are issued WIC checks which can be used to purchase designated foods at stores authorized to redeem them.”
J.O.M. Corp. v. Dep't of Health, 173 A.D.2d 153 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). “Martin Luther King Health Center under the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (the "WIC” program) established pursuant to the Federal Child Nutrition Act of 1966 ( 42 USC § 1771 et seq.). In or around 1987, respondent Department of Health commenced…”
Bd. of Educ. v. Leininger, 822 F. Supp. 516 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “§ 1751 ; 42 U.S.C. § 1771 . Each statement of purpose also declares that Congress will “assist the States,” but only as a means to accomplishing the end of aiding the statutes’ true beneficiaries.”
Briggs v. Kerrigan, 307 F. Supp. 295 (D. Mass. 1969). “It would be stated with the clarity of expression exhibited in the Child Nutrition Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1771 et seq., where the priority is made explicit: “In selecting schools, the State educational agency shall, to the extent practicable, give first consideration to those schools…”
Marquez v. Hardin, 339 F. Supp. 1364 (N.D. Cal. 1969). “42 U.S.C. § 1771 . See also House Report No.”
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.