7 U.S.C. § 1361
Application of subpart
This subpart shall apply to the publication and review of farm marketing quotas established for corn, wheat, cotton, and rice, established under part B of this subchapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases, 1958–2016 · leading case: Arnold v. Dow Chem. Co., 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7082 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
Arnold v. Dow Chem. Co., 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7082 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “( 7 U.S.C. § 1361 (a)(1).) Any private applicator who violates FIFRA after receiving a written warning or citation may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each offense, with certain exceptions.”
John Doe 1 v. Veneman, 380 F.3d 807 (5th Cir. 2004). “7 U.S.C. § 1361 — 1. 35 . See 7 U.S.C. § 136Í-1.”
Nathan Kimmel, Inc. Nathan Kimmel, LLC Knf Corp., Formerly Known as Kennedy Nylon Film Corp. v. Dowelanco, 275 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). “7 U.S.C. § 1361 (a), (b). Furthermore, the United States Attorney is statutorily authorized to enforce such penalties on behalf of the EPA, and to otherwise prosecute any violation of FIFRA or its implementing regulations.”
Sultan Chemists, Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 281 F.3d 73 (3rd Cir. 2002). “See 7 U.S.C. § 1361 . The PO focused on whether the Agreement created a valid guaranty under FIFRA § 12(b)(1).”
Bielicki v. Terminix Int'l Co., 225 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2000). “See 7 U.S.C. § 1361 . 5 Under New Mexico law, such conduct could be punishable with penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, in addition to suspension or revocation of an applicator’s license.”
Frank B. Fiedler v. Charles Clark, Acting Dir. of the Dep't of Health of the State of Hawaii, 714 F.2d 77 (9th Cir. 1983). “See 7 U.S.C. § 1361 . FI-FRA does not state, however, that the enforcement powers of either the EPA or the Attorney General are exclusive or that they otherwise expressly or by necessary implication preclude an enforcement action by a private citizen.”
Keaukaha-Panaewa Cmty. Ass'n v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, 739 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1984). “Although we declined to decide the issue, this court has stated that an independent analysis would be necessary to determine whether a section 1983 claim would lie under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which provides a public remedy but no private right…”
Gina Lowe v. Sporicidin Int'l, 47 F.3d 124 (4th Cir. 1995). “As the district court noted, “there was an approved label during the operative time frame of this case.” Therefore, if Lowe’s claims were preempted by FIFRA in 1987 or 1989, they are still preempted, notwithstanding Sporicidin's voluntary withdrawal of its registration for CSS.”
Severn Peanut Co., Inc. v. Indus. Fumigant Co., 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 2015). “7 U.S.C. § 1361 . The North Carolina statute similarly allows for criminal liability for violations of its provisions, and also for a civil penalty of not more than $500 against pesticide application businesses when violations are willful.”
FMC Corp. v. Control Solutions, Inc., 369 F. Supp. 2d 539 (E.D. Pa. 2005). “7 U.S.C. § 1361 . The EPA is also authorized to prescribe regulations to carry out FIFRA’s provisions.”
United States v. Corbin Farm Serv., 444 F. Supp. 510 (E.D. Cal. 1978). “The penalties differ for CFS and the individual defendants because the Act distinguishes between a “registrant, commercial applicator, wholesaler, dealer, retailer, or other distributor” subject to up to one year imprisonment or $25,000 fine, 7 U.S.C. § 1361 (b)(1), and a…”
Panhandle Coop. Ass'n, Bridgeport, Nebraska v. Env't Prot. Agency, 771 F.2d 1149 (8th Cir. 1985). “Panhandle further stipulated that the $5,000 civil penalty was properly proposed in accordance with the limit in 7 U.S.C. § 1361 (a)(1) (1982), although the civil penalty guidelines in 39 Fed.”
— 7 U.S.C. § 1361(3)(1)(13) — 1 case
Barrera v. Monsanto (Del. Super. Ct. 2016).
— 7 U.S.C. § 1361(b)(1)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Wabash Valley Serv. Co., 426 F. Supp. 2d 835 (S.D. Ill. 2006).
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.