On and after July 12, 1943, the Secretary may require reasonable bonds from every market agency (as defined in this subchapter), every packer (as defined in subchapter II of this chapter) in connection with its livestock purchasing operations (except that those packers whose average annual purchases do not exceed $500,000 will be exempt from the provisions of this paragraph), and every other person operating as a dealer (as defined in this subchapter) under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, to secure the performance of their obligations, and whenever, after due notice and hearing, the Secretary finds any registrant is insolvent or has violated any provisions of this chapter he may issue an order suspending such registrant for a reasonable specified period. Such order of suspension shall take effect within not less than five days, unless suspended or modified or set aside by the Secretary or a court of competent jurisdiction. If the Secretary finds any packer is insolvent, he may after notice and hearing issue an order under the provisions of section 193 of this title requiring such packer to cease and desist from purchasing livestock while insolvent, or while insolvent purchasing livestock except under such conditions as the Secretary may prescribe to effectuate the purposes of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Butz v. Glover Livestock Comm'n Co., 411 U.S. 182 (1973).
· cites it 4× “The Judicial Officer stated: "It is not a pleasant task to impose sanctions but in view of the previous warnings given respondent we conclude that we should not only issue a cease and desist order but also a suspension of respondent *185 as a registrant under the act but for a…”
United States v. Joey Haun, 124 F.3d 745 (6th Cir. 1997).
· cites it 4× “§ 203 in the amount of $2,575 ($500 for the first day of violation plus $25 per day for violations thereafter), and a permanent injunction pursuant to 7 U.S.C. §§ 204 and 216 prohibiting Haun from engaging in activities covered under the Act without first registering and…”
Jeffrey C. Ferguson v. United States Dep't of Agric., 911 F.2d 1273 (8th Cir. 1990).
· cites it 3× “In Glover Livestock, the Supreme Court reversed a decision of this court that had upheld a cease and desist order based upon a weighing violation, but had reversed a twenty-day suspension, imposed pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 204 . See Glover Livestock Comm’n Co.”
Davis v. United States (In Re Farmers & Ranchers Livestock Auction, Inc.), 46 B.R. 781 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1984).
· cites it 4× “The proposed sanctions 25 against the debtors include the suspension of the license of any registrant who is insolvent within the meaning of the Act [under 7 U.S.C. § 204 and 9 C.F.R. § 203.10 ] 26 and the injunction of any registrant from operating under the Act.”
W. I. Bowman v. United States Dep't of Agric. & Orville Freeman, as Sec'y of Agric., & United States of Am., 363 F.2d 81 (5th Cir. 1966).
· cites it 3× “Bowman, in his operations at the three stockyards, had violated the solvency requirements of 7 U.S. C.A. § 204, 3 and had engaged in business practices as a market agency in buying and selling livestock on a commission basis which were violative of §§ 304, 306 (f), 307, 312(a),…”
In Re Frosty Morn Meats, Inc., 7 B.R. 988 (M.D. Tenn. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Also, these claimants may have resort to the debtor’s 7 U.S.C. § 204 bond, which is in the penal amount of $680,000.”
Mosley v. Tennessee Dep't of Com. & Ins., 167 S.W.3d 308 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
“7 USC § 204 . Nothing whatever in that provision confines its application to cases of “intentional and flagrant conduct” or denies its application in cases of negligent or careless violations.”
Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Metro Transp. Co. (In Re Metro Transp. Co.), 64 B.R. 968 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1986).
“422 ; 7 U.S.C. § 204 ), a governmental unit may not deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license, permit, charter, franchise, or other similar grant to, condition such a grant to, discriminate with respect to such a grant against, deny employment to, terminate the…”
Spencer Livestock Comm'n Co. Mike Donaldson v. Dep't of Agric., 841 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1988).
“7 U.S.C. § 204 . Nonetheless, petitioners argue that it is reasonable to read the § 213(b) factors into § 204, since “it does not appear to be the congressional intent to permit a sanction which has the effect of completely and permanently excluding a person from the livestock…”
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.