7 U.S.C. § 1367
Stay of proceedings and exclusive jurisdiction
The commencement of judicial proceedings under this subpart shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the review committee’s determination. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the jurisdiction conferred by this subpart to review the legal validity of a determination made by a review committee pursuant to this subpart shall be exclusive. No court of the United States or of any State shall have jurisdiction to pass upon the legal validity of any such determination except in a proceeding under this subpart.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1942–1989 · leading case: Walter J. Miller v. United States
Walter J. Miller v. United States (1957)
“7 U.S. C. § 1367, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1367 , provides that the determination of the committee is exclusive and that, except under the statute, no court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to pass upon the legal validity of any such determination.”
Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (1942)
“31 , 7 U.S.C. § 1367 ; Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat.”
Oner Ii, Inc., and Jerry Saylor, Its President v. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1979)
“The relevant provision of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1367 , is express in stating those persons to whom it applies.”
United States v. Corbin Farm Service (1978)
“” 7 U.S.C. § 1367 (b). The position of the United States is that the requirement “known to repeatedly feed” is satisfied if anyone has knowledge of the repeated feeding, regardless of the individual defendants’ knowledge.”
William Corbin v. United States (1960)
“7 U.S.C. § 1367 , 7 U.S.C.A. § 1367 . Moreover, defendant’s inaction precludes him from raising his constitutional questions, for these questions clearly bear upon the ‘legal validity’ of the determinations.”
S. B. Allen v. W. Lewis David (1964)
“9 The district court determined that the remedy provided by the foregoing sections was ex-elusive, and that, in view of 7 U.S.C.A. § 1367 10 it was wholly without power to grant the relief prayed for inasmuch as *598 the plaintiffs had failed to properly pursue the remedy…”
Conifer Farms, Inc. v. Brent (1976)
“Such review is declared to be exclusive (7 USCA § 1367), and no court of the United States or of any state has jurisdiction to pass upon the legal validity of any determination of the committee except by the method of review provided.”
Organized Migrants in Community Action, Inc., Elizabeth Wilder v. Peter Brennan, Secretary, Department of Labor (1975)
“7 U.S.C. § 1367 (b)(1). 8 . See 39 Fed.Reg.”
Vann v. Jackson (1958)
“The plaintiffs have moved to remand the ease to the state courts upon the grounds, (1) that removal of the proceeding is precluded by section 367 of the Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1367 , (2) that it is not a civil action of which the district courts of the United States have original…”
Lee v. Roseberry (1950)
“This general rule of procedure, however, is met by a specific provision in § 367 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1367 , wherein in referring to the judicial proceedings under this part of the Act it provides — “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the…”
Davis v. Joyner (1964)
“In Vann the plaintiffs argued that removal of the proceeding was precluded by Title 7 U.S.C. § 1367 . The plaintiffs also argued that it was not a civil action of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.”
Dighton v. Coffman (1959)
“§ 1365 to review the determination of the Review Committee. Title 7 U.S.C.A. § 1366 expressly states “the review by the court shall be limited to questions of law, and findings of fact by the review committee, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive.”
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.