7 U.S.C. § 183

When transaction deemed in commerce; “State” defined

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar

For the purpose of this chapter (but not in anywise limiting the definition in section 182 of this title) a transaction in respect to any article shall be considered to be in commerce if such article is part of that current of commerce usual in the livestock and meat-packing industries, whereby livestock, meats, meat food products, livestock products, dairy products, poultry, poultry products, or eggs, are sent from one State with the expectation that they will end their transit, after purchase, in another, including, in addition to cases within the above general description, all cases where purchase or sale is either for shipment to another State, or for slaughter of livestock within the State and the shipment outside the State of the products resulting from such slaughter. Articles normally in such current of commerce shall not be considered out of such current through resort being had to any means or device intended to remove transactions in respect thereto from the provisions of this chapter. For the purpose of this section the word “State” includes Territory, the District of Columbia, possession of the United States, and foreign nation.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1942–2014 · leading case: Walling v. Goldblatt Bros., 128 F.2d 778 (7th Cir. 1942).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Walling v. Goldblatt Bros., 128 F.2d 778 (7th Cir. 1942). “159 , 7 U.S.C.A. § 183 ; Grain Futures Act, sec.”

United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Clover Creek Cattle Co., 452 P.2d 993 (Idaho 1969). “§ 182 [4]) transaction in “commerce” ( 7 U.S.C.A. § 183 ) in this case. As such, he was required to be and was in fact registered with the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture under 7 U.”

Stanziale v. Rite Way Meat Packers, Inc. (In Re CFP Liquidating Est.), 405 B.R. 694 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009). “7 U.S.C. § 183 . Livestock is defined as “cattle, sheep, swine, horses, mules, or goats whether live or dead.”

United States v. Tyson's Poultry, Inc., 216 F. Supp. 53 (W.D. Ark. 1963). “Therefore, it is apparent that the-petitioner has sustained its burden by showing probability of coverage from an interstate commerce standpoint when the facts are compared with the wording-of the above quoted statute, which covers not only commercial activities which are a part…”

The Produce Place v. United States Dep't of Agric., 91 F.3d 173 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “That case involved the constitutionality of the of the “current of commerce” provision in the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, 7 U.S.C. § 183 . Relying upon Swift & Co.”

Davies Warehouse Co. v. Brown, 137 F.2d 201 (Emer. Ct. App. 1943). “163 , 7 U.S.C.A. § 203 . [97] 42 Stat. 164 , 7 U.”

United States v. Baker, 241 F. Supp. 272 (M.D. Penn. 1965). “” 7 U.S.C. § 183 . Packers and Stockyards Act.”

Folsom-Third Street Meat Co. v. Freeman, 307 F. Supp. 222 (N.D. Cal. 1969). “The Act defines a transaction deemed in commerce as follows ( 7 U.S.C. § 183 ); For the purpose of this chapter (but not in anywise limiting the definition in section 182 of this title) a transaction in respect to any article shall be considered to be in commerce if such article…”

Walling v. Goldblatt Bros., 128 F.2d 778 (7th Cir. 1942). “159 , 7 U.S.C.A. § 183 ; Grain Futures Act, sec.”

United States v. Cuesta, 69 F. Supp. 3d 1296 (M.D. Fla. 2014). “7 U.S.C. § 183 . Upon due consideration, the Court finds that the United States has sufficiently alleged that Cuesta and his actions are subject to regulation under the Act.”

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.