50 U.S.C. § 4501
Short title
This chapter, divided into subchapters, may be cited as “the Defense Production Act of 1950”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2018–2026 · leading case: Am. K-9 Detection Servs., LLC & Hill Country Dog Ctr., Llc v. Latasha Freeman, 556 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. 2018).
Am. K-9 Detection Servs., LLC & Hill Country Dog Ctr., Llc v. Latasha Freeman, 556 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. 2018). “§ 2680 (j), and under the Defense Production Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C. §§ 4501 -4568. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.”
Preemptive Effect of Def. Prod. Act Order on State Law (OLC 2026). “798 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq.), to Sable by the President or his delegee would preempt the California laws currently impeding Sable from resuming production and operating the associated pipeline infrastructure.”
Am. K-9 Detection Servs., LLC & Hill Country Dog Ctr., Llc v. Latasha Freeman (Tex. 2018). “§ 2680 (j), and under the Defense Production Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C. §§ 4501–4568. 5 Practice and Remedies Code.”
Preemption of State & Local Requirements Under a PREP Act Declaration (OLC 2021). “, Defense Production Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq.; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.”
United States v. Navarro (D.D.C. 2023). “Navarro to coordinate the government’s use of the Defense Production Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq., to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Fowler v. Perdue, Inc. (Del. Super. Ct. 2023). “13) at 221–22 (citing 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq.). 143 Appellant’s Opening Br.”
SH3 Health Consulting, LLC v. Page (E.D. Mo. 2020). “For example, the Defense Production Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq. allows the President to order companies to produce necessary equipment or increase the production capacity of necessary products.”
Reed v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Tenn. 2021). “Defendant argues that it acted under a federal officer pursuant to President Trump’s April 28, 2020 Executive Order which expressly invoked the President’s authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950 (“DPA”), as amended, 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq. The Executive Order…”
Johnson v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Tenn. 2021). “Defendant argues that it acted under a federal officer pursuant to President Trump’s April 28, 2020 Executive Order which expressly invoked the President’s authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950 (“DPA”), as amended, 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq. The Executive Order…”
Johnson v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Tenn. 2022). “Trump’s April 28, 2020 Executive Order which expressly invoked the President’s authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950 (“DPA”), as amended, 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq. The Executive Order directed meat and poultry processing companies, such as Tyson, to stay open and…”
Reed v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Tenn. 2022). “Trump’s April 28, 2020 Executive Order which expressly invoked the President’s authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950 (“DPA”), as amended, 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq. The Executive Order directed meat and poultry processing companies, such as Defendant, to stay open and…”
United States v. Bulloch (2d Cir. 2026). “Defense Production Act of 1950 and COVID-19 Regulation Congress passed the DPA, 50 U.S.C. §§4501 et seq., during the Korean War in an effort “to maintain a large production of military goods while seeking also to meet the long-denied and increasing needs of the Nation’s civil…”
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.