7 U.S.C. § 16

AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT COMMODITIES DONATED BY FEDERAL SOURCES.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)In General.—The Secretary may accept donations of commodities from any Federal agency, including commodities of another Federal agency determined to be excess personal property pursuant to section 202(d) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483(d)) [now 40 U.S.C. 525].“(b)Use.—The Secretary may donate the commodities received under subsection (a) to States for distribution through any domestic food assistance program administered by the Secretary.“(c)Payment.—Notwithstanding section 202(d) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483(d)) [now 40 U.S.C. 525], the Secretary shall not be required to make any payment in connection with the commodities received under subsection (a).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n, 322 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2003).
Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n, 322 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “” 7 U.S.C. § 16 (e)(2)(A). As explained by the House Conference Committee Report: Section 502(c) of the [FTPA] amends section 12(e)(2)(A) of the [CEA] to provide that any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of “bucket shops” (other than…”
Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n, 310 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “” 7 U.S.C. § 16 (e)(2)(A). As explained by the House Conference Committee Report: Section 502(c) of the [FTPA] amends section 12(e)(2)(A) of the [CEA] to provide that any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of “bucket shops” (other than…”
E. Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 79 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “Cross-Appellants further argue that a 1983 amendment of the CEA, the "Open Season Provision” embodied in 7 U.S.C. § 16 (e) (1994), does not overrule the Treasury Amendment's preemption of state securities regulation of the transactions at issue.”
Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n (In Re Thrifty Oil Co.), 249 B.R. 537 (S.D. Cal. 2000). · cites it 2× “” 7 U.S.C. § 16 (e)(2)(A). As explained by the House Conference Committee Report: Section 502(c) of the [FTPA] amends section 12(e)(2)(A) of the [CEA] to provide that any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of “bucket shops” (other than…”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Am. Metals Exch. Corp., 775 F. Supp. 767 (D.N.J. 1991). “2294 , 2318 (1983) (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 16 (e)). As a result, the CEA now “does not supersede or preempt any Federal or State statute .”
John A. Vercillo v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 147 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 1998). “Pursuant to § 9(b) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 16 (b), such felony convictions give rise to a presumption that Vercillo should be permanently banned from trading on Commission-regulated markets unless he can show by the weight of the evidence that his continued access to such markets…”
State v. Stuber, 1 P.3d 333 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “19 (citing 7 U.S.C. § 16 ). More specifically, “anyone who should be registered with the CFTC but is not in fact registered is fair game for state and federal enforcement agencies.”
Mallen v. Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc., 623 F. Supp. 203 (N.D. Ga. 1985). “All three of the listed nonpreempted areas involve criminal prosecutions or administrative sanction-type proceedings, in which the regulations set forth in the Commodity Exchange Act do not apply.”
Myron v. Hauser, 673 F.2d 994 (8th Cir. 1982). “Under § 101(b) of the 1974 Act, 7 U.S.C. § 16 (d), the CFTC was funded for four fiscal years (ending June 30, 1978).”
People Ex Rel. Bender v. Wind River Mining Proj., 219 Cal. App. 3d 1390 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). “(See 7 U.S.C. § 16 (e).) The parties all agree that the Wind River scheme is not regulated under the federal Commodity Exchange Act, and thus in conformity with Hofmayer we find no preemption.”
Sukumar v. Nautilus, Inc., 829 F. Supp. 2d 386 (W.D. Va. 2011). “Commodities law is not a perfectly analogous scenario to the present case, not least of which because the federal statute explicitly provides Congress’s intent not to preempt similar state statutes.”
Bd. of Trade v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 677 F.2d 1137 (7th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “The jurisdictional agreement has not made the case moot, however. Although Congress has provided that the CFTC “maintain communications” with the SEC regarding CFTC activities that “relate” to SEC responsibilities, 7 U.”
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.