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 C— Administrative Provisions › Subpart subpart i— publication and review of quotas
If the farmer is dissatisfied with the determination of the review committee, he may, within fifteen days after a notice of such determination is mailed to him by registered mail or by certified mail, file a bill in equity against the review committee as defendant in the United States district court, or institute proceedings for review in any court of record of the State having general jurisdiction, sitting in the county or the district in which his farm is located, for the purpose of obtaining a review of such determination. Bond shall be given in an amount and with surety satisfactory to the court to secure the United States for the costs of the proceeding. The bill of complaint in such proceeding may be served by delivering a copy thereof to any one of the members of the review committee. Thereupon the review committee shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record upon which the determination complained of was made, together with its findings of fact.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
58
cases, 1945–2000 · leading case:
Davis v. Joyner, 240 F. Supp. 689 (E.D.N.C. 1964).
Davis v. Joyner, 240 F. Supp. 689 (E.D.N.C. 1964).
· cites it 5× “The Court assumes that the plaintiff was referring to Title 7 U.S.C. § 1365 when he speaks of Title 7 U.”
Dow Chem. Co. v. Ebling, 723 N.E.2d 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “7 U.S.C. § 1365 (c)(5). At the time of registration, the manufacturer is required to submit a proposed label to the EPA for approval, and the EPA must ensure that the proposed label is both "adequate to protect health and the environment" and "likely to be read and understood.”
Fred Chandler, Sr. v. W. Lewis David, 350 F.2d 669 (5th Cir. 1965).
· cites it 2× “A farmer may obtain court review of an adverse decision of the review committee pursuant to 7 U.S.C.A. § 1365 , and the court’s determination is “limited to questions of law.”
Dighton v. Coffman, 178 F. Supp. 114 (E.D. Ill. 1959).
· cites it 2× “” Plaintiif now presents a bill in equity in accordance with 7 U.S.C.A. § 1365 to review the determination of the Review Committee.”
Williamson v. Holland, 232 F. Supp. 479 (E.D.N.C. 1963).
· cites it 2× “SUMMARY This action was instituted by the plaintiffs under Section 365 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended ( 7 U.S.C. § 1365 ) to obtain a review of the determination of a Review Committee consisting of the defendants who were appointed by the Secretary of…”
Smith Land Co. v. Christensen, 148 F.2d 184 (10th Cir. 1945).
· cites it 2× “In accordance with Section 365 of the Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1365 , the company instituted this action in the United States Court for Utah against the members of the district review committee to obtain a review of the determination.”
S. B. Allen v. W. Lewis David, 334 F.2d 592 (5th Cir. 1964).
“*597 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1365 , 1366. 9 The district court determined that the remedy provided by the foregoing sections was ex-elusive, and that, in view of 7 U.”
Gladney v. Review Comm., 230 F. Supp. 35 (W.D. La. 1964).
· cites it 2× “7 U.S.C. § 1365 . Due notice of Petitioner’s allotment was mailed to him on December 2, 1963, by the local County Committee.”
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.