U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 35— AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938 › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— LOANS, PARITY PAYMENTS, CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS, MARKETING QUOTAS, AND MARKETING CERTIFICATES › Part Part B— Marketing Quotas › Subpart subpart iii— marketing quotas—wheat

7 U.S.C. § 1339a

Repealed. Pub. L. 107–171, title I, § 1613(j)(1), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 221

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1966–2001 · leading case: Hilo Coast Processing Co., & California & Hawaiian Sugar Co., Third Party v. The United States, 816 F.2d 629 (3rd Cir. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hilo Coast Processing Co., & California & Hawaiian Sugar Co., Third Party v. The United States, 816 F.2d 629 (3rd Cir. 1987). · cites it 4× “If the Secretary determines to treat plaintiffs and the IPRs in the same manner by declaring the regulation in error, repealing it, but deciding pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 1339a (1982), that the money relief previously given the IPRs should not be recouped, the Secretary shall state…”
Beard v. Glickman, 189 F. Supp. 2d 994 (C.D. Cal. 2001). · cites it 2× “See 7 U.S.C. §§ 1339a, 6998(d) and 7 C.F.R. §§ 718.”
Willson v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 300 (Ct. Cl. 1988). “The ASCS offered equitable relief for the damage caused by plaintiffs’ foregoing spring planting pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 1339a (1982), which authorizes equitable relief to a farmer who relies to his detriment on advice of an authorized representative of the Department of…”
United States v. Norman Kopf, 379 F.2d 8 (8th Cir. 1967). “The Government places considerable reliance upon 7 U.S.C.A. § 1339a which reads: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, performance rendered in good faith in reliance upon action or advice of an authorized representative of the Secretary may be accepted as meeting the…”
Gregory v. Freeman, 261 F. Supp. 362 (N.D.N.Y. 1966). · cites it 2× “Petitioner at a hearing before the Cayuga County Committee, while acknowledging that he was not in compliance with the provisions of the program, contended that the committee, pursuant to the discretion afforded by 7 U.S.C. § 1339a (as in effect in 1963), should treat him r*…”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Agric. Stabilization & Conservation Serv., 955 F.2d 1199 (8th Cir. 1992). · cites it 4× “deration, the Izaak Walton League of America, and Leon Carney, who were plaintiffs in the district court and to whom we refer collectively as NWF, request that we decide whether the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,…”
Brundidge Banking Co. v. Pike Cnty. Agric. Stabilization & Conservation Comm., 899 F.2d 1154 (11th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “Because the regulation is the reasonable implementation of a statute, 7 U.S.C. § 1339a, we reject the less soundly based construction of section 729.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Agric. Stabilization & Conservation Serv., 941 F.2d 667 (8th Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “ederation, the Minnesota Conservation Federation, the Izaak Walton League of America, and Leon Carney, who were plaintiffs in the district court and to whom we refer collectively as NWF, request that we decide whether the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Agricultural…”
Bateman Co. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 123 F. Supp. 2d 625 (M.D. Ga. 2000). “The former statute, since repealed, which gave the Secretary this authority was 7 U.S.C. § 1339a. 4 . The regulation numbers have changed since the incidents involved in this litigation occurred.”
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.