7 U.S.C. § 1921
Congressional findings
The Congress finds that the statutory authority of the Secretary of Agriculture, hereinafter referred to in this chapter as the “Secretary,” for making and insuring loans to farmers and ranchers should be revised and consolidated to provide for more effective credit services to farmers.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 95
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1962–2023 · leading case: Curry v. Block, 541 F. Supp. 506 (S.D. Ga. 1982).
Curry v. Block, 541 F. Supp. 506 (S.D. Ga. 1982). “7 U.S.C. §§ 1921 et seq. It is apparent that most if not all of these farmers began experiencing financial difficulty in 1977 due in large part to adverse weather and economic conditions.”
United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715 (1979). “Ill) (declaration of policy); 7 U. S. C. § 1921 (congressional findings); 43 Fed.”
Wayne v. Vill. of Sebring, 36 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 1994). “The loan was governed by the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1921 et seq. Regulations enacted pursuant to this Act provided that, in order to secure the loan, Sebring had to pass an ordinance outlining the manner in which it was to repay the loan.”
Rural Water Dist. 3 v. Owasso Utils. Auth., 530 F. Supp. 818 (N.D. Okla. 1979). “The Court finds that § 1926(b) of the Agricultural Credit Act, Title 7 U.S.C. § 1921 et seq. was not enacted for the purposes of fire protection — it.”
In Re Est. of Funk, 849 N.E.2d 366 (Ill. 2006). “It was an operating loan issued pursuant to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act ( 7 U.S.C. § 1921 et seq. ). The loan amount, $44,000, was larger than the second and third loans.”
Adams Cnty. Reg'l Water Dist. & Adams Cnty. Water Co., Inc. v. Vill. of Manchester, Ohio & Vill. of West Union, Ohio, 226 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2000). “§ 1926 (b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1921 et seq. (“the Act”). For the reasons set forth below, the district court’s order is REVERSED.”
Rural Water Sewer & Solid Waste Mgmt., Dist. No. 1 v. City of Guthrie, 654 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 2011). “BACKGROUND “In 1961 Congress amended the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1921 -2009n, to allow nonprofit water associations to borrow federal funds for ‘the conservation, development, use, and control of water .”
Pub. Water Supply Dist. No. 10 of Cass Cnty., Missouri v. City of Peculiar, Missouri, 345 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2003). “To further this purpose, the District entered into a loan agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture for $465,000 pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 1921 et seg. The first installment was due on June 2, 2002.”
Rural Water Dist. No. 4 v. City of Eudora, Kansas, 720 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2013). “59Qr, 590s, 590x-l, *1275 590x-a and 590x —3,—and amendments thereto 7 U.S.C. § 1921 et seq., as in effect on the effective date of this act.”
United States v. Zac A. Crittenden, Jr., D/B/A Crittenden Tractor Co., 563 F.2d 678 (5th Cir. 1977). “From 1970 to 1972 Bridges, in need of operating capital for his farm, obtained several loans pursuant to the Consolidated Farmers Home Administration Act of 1961, 7 U.S.C. § 1921 et seq., 2 from FHA, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture.”
In re: Veneman, Ann, 309 F.3d 789 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “The United States Department of Agriculture administers several farm credit and benefit programs under the direction of its Farm Service Agency (“FSA”).”
City of Eudora v. Rural Water Dist. No. 4, 875 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2017). “Eudora II On remand, the district court had new cross-motions, for summary judgment under advisement when the Kansas legislature amended § 82a-619(g) to replace the repealed federal statutes with “7 U.S.C. § 1921 et seq.,” which includes § 1926(b).”
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.