7 U.S.C. § 205
General duty as to services; revocation of registration
All stockyard services furnished pursuant to reasonable request made to a stockyard owner or market agency at such stockyard shall be reasonable and nondiscriminatory and stockyard services which are furnished shall not be refused on any basis that is unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory: Provided, That in any State where the weighing of livestock at a stockyard is conducted by a duly authorized department or agency of the State, the Secretary, upon application of such department or agency, may register it as a market agency for the weighing of livestock received in such stockyard, and upon such registration such department or agency and the members thereof shall be amenable to all the requirements of this chapter, and upon failure of such department or agency or the members thereof to comply with the orders of the Secretary under this chapter he is authorized to revoke the registration of such department or agency and to enforce such revocation as provided in section 216 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1943–1997 · leading case: Robert E. Parchman Virgil R. (Ray) Lemons Jack E. Hamilton v. United States Dep't of Agric., 852 F.2d 858 (6th Cir. 1988).
Robert E. Parchman Virgil R. (Ray) Lemons Jack E. Hamilton v. United States Dep't of Agric., 852 F.2d 858 (6th Cir. 1988). “The weight discrepancies discovered on August 11,1984, and May 18, 1985, support the determinations that 7 U.S.C. §§ 205 , 208, 213(a) and 221 were violated by the stockyard operators because these statutory provisions prohibit the use of “unfair” or “deceptive” practices by a…”
Denver Union Stock Yard Co. v. Producers Livestock Mktg. Ass'n, 356 U.S. 282 (1958). “164 , as amended, 7 U. S. C. § 205 , requires a market agency registered at a given stockyard to furnish reasonable services at that stockyard on reasonable request of a customer.”
Corona Livestock Auction, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric. & the Packers & Stockyards Admin., 607 F.2d 811 (9th Cir. 1979). “At issue is Corona’s unique method of selling culled dairy cows for slaughter, which the Secretary claims violates sections 304, 307, and 312(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§ 205 , 208, and 213(a) (1970) (the Act), and 9 C.”
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). “the Packers and Stock Yards Act, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 205 , 207(f), 208, 213(a) and 221, 4 as well as certain regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act.”
United States v. Joey Haun, 124 F.3d 745 (6th Cir. 1997). “1968) (remanding primary jurisdiction issue for record development where registered dealer claimed that the defendants conspired to exclude him from their stockyards in violation of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 205 , 208, and…”
United States v. E. H. Kramel & Orr Crum, Individually, & Bowles Livestock Comm'n Co., 234 F.2d 577 (8th Cir. 1956). “at the Kansas City Stockyard is a “public utility” 2 within the Packers and Stockyards Act; that possession of personal property is “prima facie evidence of ownership” under Missouri law (citing cases); that the Act requires “market agencies” (such as defendants there) “to…”
Ottumwa Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Keoco Auction Co., 347 N.W.2d 393 (Iowa 1984). “The court also held that the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. § 205 (1982), provided no relief for the auction company.”
Jackson v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 836 F. Supp. 1447 (W.D. Ark. 1993). “In reaching that conclusion, it was noted that § 304 of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 205 , declared: “It shall be the duty of every stockyard owner and market agency to furnish upon reasonable request, without discrimination, reasonable stockyard services at such stockyard----”…”
Sioux City Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 49 F. Supp. 801 (N.D. Iowa 1943). “164 , 7 U.S.C.A. § 205 , provides that “It shall be the duty of every stockyard owner and market agency to furnish upon reasonable request, without discrimination, reasonable stockyard services at such stockyard * * We entertain no doubt that the leasing of reasonable office…”
Hyatt v. United States, 276 F.2d 308 (10th Cir. 1960). “Accordingly, it was concluded -that the charging of selling commissions -to the country sellers and the charging of yardage fees and other fees were in wilful violation of the act, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 205 , 208, 213(a). 4 Moreover, it was found by the Judicial Officer that…”
Lewis v. Goldsborough, 234 F. Supp. 524 (E.D. Ark. 1964). “1 above, that no violation, either by act or omission on their part, of Title 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 205 , 206, 207, or 208, has been shown, arises as a result of the fact that the plaintiff has introduced into evidence the reparation order issued by the Secretary of Agriculture, and…”
Harry C. Daniels, D/B/A Harry C. Daniels & Co. v. United States of Am. & Ezra Taft Benson, Sec'y of Agric., 242 F.2d 39 (7th Cir. 1957). “In only eleven of these was the registration suspended, and in all but two of the eleven, the suspension was held in abeyance. Respondent insists that the decision of the Judicial Officer herein will put him out of business permanently.”
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.