U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 26— AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— COMMODITY BENEFITS

7 U.S.C. § 13

AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER COMMODITIES BETWEEN PROGRAMS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)Transfer.—Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary may transfer any commodities purchased with appropriated funds for a domestic food assistance program administered by the Secretary to any other domestic food assistance program administered by the Secretary if the transfer is necessary to ensure that the commodities will be used while the commodities are still suitable for human consumption.“(b)Reimbursement.—The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, provide reimbursement for the value of the commodities transferred under subsection (a) from accounts available for the purchase of commodities under the program receiving the commodities.“(c)Crediting.—Any reimbursement made under subsection (b) shall—“(1) be credited to the accounts that incurred the costs when the transferred commodities were originally purchased; and“(2) be available for the purchase of commodities with the same limitations as are provided for appropriated funds for the reimbursed accounts for the fiscal year in which the transfer takes place.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 175 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1937–2025 · leading case: Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353 (1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353 (1982). · cites it 12× “1003 , codified as amended, 7 U. S. C. § 13 (1976 ed., Supp. IV). The penalties subsequently have been increased.”
United States v. James Brooks, 681 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2012). · cites it 8× “” 5 On September 25, 2006, the government filed a second superseding indictment, charging the Defendants-Appellants with forty-nine counts: specifically, twenty-four counts of false reporting in violation of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 13 (a)(2), twenty-four counts of wire fraud in…”
Ploss v. Kraft Foods Grp., Inc., 197 F. Supp. 3d 1037 (N.D. Ill. 2016). · cites it 7× “Ploss, on behalf of all of the Plaintiffs, brings seven counts against Kraft: (1) price manipulation under Section 9(a)(2) of the CEA for the long wheat futures scheme, 7 U.S.C. § 13 (a)(2); (2) use of a manipulative device under Section 6(c)(1) of the CEA for the long wheat…”
United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997). · cites it 4× “, 7 U. S. C. § 13 (a)(3); 7 U. S. C. § 6407 (e).”
Richard Hershey v. Energy Transfer Partners, 610 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “Because the specific intent standard is grounded in sound reasoning and precedent, we adopt it for private causes of action under the CEA, 7 U.S.C. §§ 13 (a) and 25(a). 2. The Underlying Commodity of a NYMEX Natural Gas Futures Contract As previously discussed, all natural gas…”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Rosenberg, 85 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.N.J. 2000). · cites it 7× “10 (1999); (2) unlawfully converted Stollenwerck’s money in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 13 (a)(1); (3) acted as a futures commission merchant (“FCM”) or introducing broker (“IB”) without registering as such and commingled funds in violation of 7 U.”
Prime Int'l Trading Ltd. v. BP PLC, 937 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “” 7 U.S.C. § 13 (a)(2). Plaintiffs seek to enforce these substantive provisions of the CEA through the Act’s private right of action, Statoil and STASCO on other grounds, in a summary order issued simultaneously with this opinion.”
In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 935 F. Supp. 2d 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). · cites it 3× “Here, “interstate commerce,” as referenced1 in section 9(a) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 13 (a)(2), does not even include a reference to foreign commerce, id.”
Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944). · cites it 2× “§§ 45 (g)-(l) imposing heavy penalties, for violation of an administrative order which has become final by its affirmance upon the exclusive statutory method of review provided, or by the expiration of the time allowed for review without resort to the statutory procedure.”
Hiatt Grain & Feed, Inc. v. Bergland, 446 F. Supp. 457 (D. Kan. 1978). · cites it 4× “Specifically, it appears to be the thrust of plaintiff’s contention that: If cooperatives could command a controlling position in either the cash or futures markets, they would be in a position to “squeeze” or “corner” the market in clear violation of the antimanipulative…”
In Re Soybean Futures Litig., 892 F. Supp. 1025 (N.D. Ill. 1995). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, collectively referred to as the “Ferruz-zi Parties,” reaped unlawful gains from the July and August 1989 soybeans futures markets by: (1) manipulating futures prices in violation of Section 9(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), 7 U.S.C. §…”
United States v. Valencia, 600 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2010). “She was initially charged with three counts of false reporting under the Commodities Exchange Act (“CEA”), in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 13 (a)(2), and four counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.”
Show all 175 citing cases →
— 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997). “, 7 U. S. C. § 13 (a)(3); 7 U. S. C. § 6407 (e).”
— 7 U.S.C. § 13(b) — 1 case
Darryl B. Deaktor v. L. D. Schreiber & Co., Al Phillips, Jr. v. The Chicago Mercantile Exch., 479 F.2d 529 (7th Cir. 1973).
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.