7 U.S.C. § 1100
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1940–1974 · leading case: Judith Ann Petersen v. Talisman Sugar Corp., 478 F.2d 73 (5th Cir. 1973).
Judith Ann Petersen v. Talisman Sugar Corp., 478 F.2d 73 (5th Cir. 1973). “The Sugar Act of 1948, 7 U.S.C. § 1100 et seq. provides for payments by the Secretary of Agriculture to producers of sugar.”
Am. Crystal Sugar Co. v. The Cuban-Am. Sugar Co., 259 F.2d 524 (2d Cir. 1958). “He outlined the somewhat limited extent to which competition had been foreclosed by the National Sugar Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1100 et seq., and emphasized the still available room for competition in the sale and distribution of refined sugar.”
Gross v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 605 (Ct. Cl. 1974). “922 , 7 U.S.C. § 1100 (1970). It contains a substantially identical finality provision, 61 Stat.”
Rudolph O. Schneider, Jr. & Steven Vitale v. United States, 459 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1972). “381 (1950) (upholding the Sugar Act of 1948, 7 U.S.C. § 1100 et seq., which, it was argued, imposed certain sugar quotas for offshore areas such as Puerto Rico but not for mainland refineries); Currin v.”
Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino, 193 F. Supp. 375 (S.D.N.Y. 1961). “922 , 7 U.S.C. § 1100 et seq., to authorize the President to reduce the sugar quota allotted to Cuba for the remainder of 1960 and through March 31, 1961.”
Gay Union Corp. v. Wallace, 112 F.2d 192 (D.C. Cir. 1940). “The first allotment order ever issued in respect to the mainland cane sugar quota, therefore, was that of 1939, the operation of which was suspended by the Presidential Proclamation of Sept.”
W. Willard Wirtz, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Osceola Farms Co., 372 F.2d 584 (5th Cir. 1967). “Thereunder the independent growers, agreed to plant, cultivate, grow and produce such amounts of cane as permitted by applicable regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture issued under the Sugar Act of 1948 [ 7 U.S.C.A. § 1100 et seq.]. Employees of Osceola cut…”
Mario Mercado E Hijos (Cent. Rufina) v. Ezra Taft Benson, Sec'y of Agric., 231 F.2d 251 (D.C. Cir. 1956). “922 , 7 U.S.C.A. § 1100 ff. The Act authorizes the Secretary to make certain payments, from funds appropriated by Congress, to producer-processors who comply with certain conditions, one of which is that they pay, for beets or cane grown by other producers, not less than rates…”
Consumers Union of U. S., Inc. v. Kissinger, 506 F.2d 136 (D.C. Cir. 1974). “922 -934, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 1100 et seq.; the Meat Act of 1964, § 2, 78 Stat.”
Waialua Agric. Co., Ltd. v. Maneja, 216 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1954). “, now 7 U.S.C.A. § 1100 et seq., was enacted, which differentiated explicitly between sugar produced on the mainland and that produced in the dependencies, territories and protectorates, and that produced in the latter between the separate areas.”
Gomez v. Buckeye Sugars, 60 F.R.D. 106 (N.D. Ohio 1973). “; Sugar Act of 1948, 7 U.S.C. § 1100 et seq. The suit was filed by Juan Gomez and Ricardo Lopez as a class action.”
Chiglades Farm, Ltd. v. Earl L. Butz, Sec'y of Agric. of the United States of Am., 485 F.2d 1125 (5th Cir. 1973). “allotment of sugar quotas under the Sugar Act of 1948, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1100 et seq. In Central Roig Refining Co.”
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.