7 U.S.C. § 209
Liability to individuals for violations; enforcement generally
2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–171 inserted “or swine production contract” after “poultry growing arrangement”.
1987—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–173 inserted “the purchase or sale of poultry, or relating to any poultry growing arrangement,” after “livestock,”.
1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–410 struck out references to violations of specific sections and added packers to categories of regulated persons against whom private action could be brought for violation of chapter.
Amendment by Pub. L. 100–173 effective 90 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1942–2023 · leading case: Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2007).
Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). “1995) (holding that the only means of enforcing § 202 against live poultry dealers is to file suit in federal district court under § 308, 7 U.S.C. § 209 (a)). [6] Moreover, we afford the USDA's position as stated in its amicus brief before the Eleventh Circuit little to no…”
Fillippo v. S. Bonaccurso & Sons, Inc., 466 F. Supp. 1008 (E.D. Pa. 1978). “Whatever may have been the law prior to the Act’s amendment in 1976, 7 U.S.C. § 209 (a) expanded the claims which may be enforced by private parties to include suits by an unpaid cash seller against a packer.”
Kinkaid v. John Morrell & Co., 321 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Iowa 2004). ““Section 308(a) of the PSA, as amended [ 7 U.S.C. § 209 (a) ], provides that any person subject to the statute who violates any of its provisions relating to the purchase or sale of [livestock] .”
Montana-Dakota Utils. Co. v. Nw. Pub. Serv. Co., 341 U.S. 246 (1951). “165 , 7 U. S. C. § 209 . But it was not given to the Federal Power Commission.”
Jackson v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 836 F. Supp. 1447 (W.D. Ark. 1993). “The court went on to point out that the doctrine applied even though the provisions of § 308 of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 209 , appeared to specifically give an injured party the right to damages to be enforced either by complaint to the Secretary of Agriculture or by *1453 suit in…”
Hedrick v. S. Bonaccurso & Sons, Inc., 466 F. Supp. 1025 (E.D. Pa. 1978). “This may be so, but as amended in 1976, 7 U.S.C. § 209 (a) expanded the claims which may be enforced by private parties to include suits by an unpaid cash seller against a packer.”
Jackson v. Swift-Eckrich, 830 F. Supp. 486 (W.D. Ark. 1993). “7 U.S.C. § 209 . See also Baldree v. Cargill, Inc.”
CPC Livestock, LLC v. Fifth Third Bank, Inc., 495 B.R. 332 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2013). “Additionally, Fifth Third highlights that the PSA provides a private remedy for individuals who are harmed by PSA violations pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 209 (a). See Cent. Trust Co. v.”
Rowse v. Platte Valley Livestock, Inc., 604 F. Supp. 1463 (D. Neb. 1985). “Courts interpreting the same statutory language at issue here— “shall be liable to the person or persons injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence of such violation,” compare 7 U.S.C. § 209 (a) with former 49 U.S.C. § 8 (repealed 1978))— have long…”
Cent. Trust Co. v. B & L LEASING, 669 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Ohio 1987). “” 7 U.S.C. § 209 . “Person” includes individuals, partnerships and associations.”
Harold Bruce London v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 410 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2005). “” 7 U.S.C. § 209 (a). B. Issues 1. Section 202(a) requires an anti-competitive effect.”
Bokum Resources Corp. v. Long Island Lighting Co. (In Re Bokum Resources Corp.), 49 B.R. 854 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1985). “, supra, was to enforce statutory trust rights under the Packers and Stockyards Act and was a civil proceeding that, in the absence of a petition in bankruptcy, could have been brought in a district court pursuant to 7 U.”
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.