7 U.S.C. § 1376
Court jurisdiction; duties of United States attorneys; remedies and penalties as additional
The several district courts of the United States are vested with jurisdiction specifically to enforce the provisions of this subchapter. If and when the Secretary shall so request, it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings to collect the penalties provided in this subchapter. The remedies and penalties provided for herein shall be in addition to, and not exclusive of, any of the remedies or penalties under existing law. This section also shall be applicable to liquidated damages provided for pursuant to section 1349 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1954–1998 · leading case: United States v. Morelock, 124 F. Supp. 932 (D. Maryland 1954).
United States v. Morelock, 124 F. Supp. 932 (D. Maryland 1954). “The principal questions in each case are: (1) Would the granting of the relief prayed violate rights protected by the Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution? (2) Is it a suit “specifically to enforce the provisions” of the Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1376 ? (3) What is the…”
Cole v. United States Dep't of Agric., 133 F.3d 803 (11th Cir. 1998). “1092 (1939) (referring to “proceedings” authorized by 7 U.S.C. § 1376 ) (emphasis added). Having determined that Congress intended for the over-quota marketing penalty to be civil, we turn to the second part of the test, whether it is “so punitive in form and effect as to render…”
United States v. Shafer, 132 F. Supp. 659 (D. Maryland 1955). “7 U.S.C.A. § 1376 3 provides that “proceedings to collect the penalties” are to be filed upon the request of the Secretary.”
United States v. C. E. Sykes, 310 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1962). “Jurisdiction was invoked under 7 U.S.C.A. § 1376 , and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1345 .”
United States v. Lillard, 143 F. Supp. 113 (W.D. Mo. 1956). “Section 376 of the Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1376 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1345 place jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this action in this Court.”
United States v. Bonderer, 139 F. Supp. 391 (W.D. Mo. 1956). “Jurisdiction of the court vests under the provisions of Section 376 of the Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1376 , and under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 .”
Mervin Gajewski v. United States, 327 F.2d 239 (8th Cir. 1964). “2 Jurisdiction for the enforcement of the penalty is conferred upon the trial court by 7 U.S.C.A. § 1376 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1345 .”
United States v. Glen S. Martin, Jr., D/B/A Big Burly Tobacco Warehouse, 95 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 1996). “§ 714b, 7 U.S.C. § 1376 , and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 . We REVERSE and REMAND.”
Drew v. Lawrimore, 257 F. Supp. 659 (D.S.C. 1966). “It is brought under the provisions of 7 U.S.C. § 1376 3 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 4 and § 1361.”
United States v. Stangland, 137 F. Supp. 539 (N.D. Ind. 1956). “Motion For Summary Judgment Both defendants in their answers admit the jurisdiction of the Court of the subject matter of these actions under the provisions of Section 376 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1376 , and under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 .”
United States v. State of Ohio, 354 F.2d 549 (6th Cir. 1966). “alties under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 for growing wheat on state-owned farms in excess of federally-imposed acreage allotments, where none of the wheat so produced entered or could have entered interstate or foreign commerce, directly or indirectly, by virtue of…”
United States v. Lynn, 132 F. Supp. 605 (E.D. Ky. 1955). “, jurisdiction of which is conferred by section 376 of the Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1376 . At the conclusion of testimony on behalf of the United States, the defendant made a motion for judgment on the proof offered by the plaintiff.”
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.