7 U.S.C. § 206
Rates and charges generally; discrimination
All rates or charges made for any stockyard services furnished at a stockyard by a stockyard owner or market agency shall be just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, and any unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory rate or charge is prohibited and declared to be unlawful: Provided, That rates and charges based upon percentages of the gross sales prices of livestock shall not be prohibited merely because they are based upon such percentages rather than on a per head basis.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1928–1993 · leading case: Giles Lowery Stockyards, Inc. D/B/A Lufkin Livestock Exch. v. Dep't of Agric., 565 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1977).
Giles Lowery Stockyards, Inc. D/B/A Lufkin Livestock Exch. v. Dep't of Agric., 565 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1977). “” 7 U.S.C. § 206 . 1 The Act also provides that whenever, after full hearing, the Secretary of Agriculture determines that any rate or charge is or will be unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory, the Secretary may determine and prescribe reasonable rates or charges.”
Jackson v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 836 F. Supp. 1447 (W.D. Ark. 1993). “The opinion goes on to point out that the law requires that, “[r]ates and charges are to be reasonable and nondiscriminatory and any which is unreasonable or discriminatory is ‘prohibited and declared to be unlawful’ § 305, 7 U.S.C. § 206 .” McCleneghan, 298 F.2d at 663 .”
W. Iowa Farms Co. v. United States of Am. Bob Bergland, Sec'y of Agric., Sioux City Stock Yards, Intervenor, 629 F.2d 502 (8th Cir. 1980). “Petitioners contend that Rule 22 is a rate or charge for the stockyard facilities and point to § 305 of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 206 : All rates or charges made for any stockyard services furnished at a stockyard by a stockyard owner or…”
In the Matter of Samuels & Co., Inc., Bankrupt. Curtis R. Stowers v. James S. Mahon, Tr., & C. I. T. Corp., 483 F.2d 557 (5th Cir. 1973). “The court considered 7 U.S.C. §§ 206 , 208, 212 and 213, and concluded that Milan’s wrongful negotiation of plaintiff’s check for a purpose other than that noted on its face was a matter outside the Secretary’s jurisdiction.”
Cent. Arkansas Auction Sale, Inc. v. Bergland, 570 F.2d 724 (8th Cir. 1978). “The Administration concluded on the basis of the petitioners’ annual reports that the proposed rate increases would not be “just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” as required by 7 U.S.C. § 206 . 1 The Administration filed a separate complaint, order of suspension, and notice…”
Inghram v. Union Stock Yards Co. of Omaha, Ltd., 64 F.2d 390 (8th Cir. 1933). “” The answer of appellant challenged the legality of these charges as being discriminatory, under sections 305 and 307 of the Packers’ and Stockyards Act (7 USCA §§ 206, 208); also, that the schedule of charges sought to be enforced was in violation of a ruling by the Secretary…”
Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United States, 29 F.2d 750 (D. Neb. 1928). “Eliminating matter not relevant to this particular question by means of asterisks, the statute says: Section 305 (7 USCA § 206): “All rates * * * made for any stockyard services furnished at a stockyard by a stockyard owner or market agency shall be just, reasonable, and…”
Denver Union Stockyard Co. v. Denver Live Stock Comm'n Co., 404 F.2d 1055 (10th Cir. 1968). “7 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207. Unreasonable or discriminatory practices are forbidden.”
Litvak Meat Co. v. Denver Union Stock Yard Co., 303 F. Supp. 715 (D. Colo. 1969). “Among the provisions enumerated are 7 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 208, on which the complaint purports to be primarily based.”
McClenegman v. Union Stock Yards Co., 298 F.2d 659 (8th Cir. 1962). “§ 305, 7 U.S. C.A. § 206. The next succeeding section provides for the scheduling of rates and the enforcement thereof.”
O. V. Handy Bros. v. Wallace, 16 F. Supp. 662 (E.D. Pa. 1936). “Returning now to a consideration of the act of Congress which this case brings before us, it is plain that there is no delegation to legislate which is in any way comparable to that which was before the Supreme Court in the Schechter Case, and it follows that the discussion in…”
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.