U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 9— PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— STOCKYARDS AND STOCKYARD DEALERS

7 U.S.C. § 213

Prevention of unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practices

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) It shall be unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device in connection with determining whether persons should be authorized to operate at the stockyards, or with the receiving, marketing, buying, or selling on a commission basis or otherwise, feeding, watering, holding, delivery, shipment, weighing, or handling of livestock.(b) Whenever complaint is made to the Secretary by any person, or whenever the Secretary has reason to believe, that any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer is violating the provisions of subsection (a), the Secretary after notice and full hearing may make an order that he shall cease and desist from continuing such violation to the extent that the Secretary finds that it does or will exist. The Secretary may also assess a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each such violation. In determining the amount of the civil penalty to be assessed under this section, the Secretary shall consider the gravity of the offense, the size of the business involved, and the effect of the penalty on the person’s ability to continue in business. If, after the lapse of the period allowed for appeal or after the affirmance of such penalty, the person against whom the civil penalty is assessed fails to pay such penalty, the Secretary may refer the matter to the Attorney General who may recover such penalty by an action in the appropriate district court of the United States.(Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title III, § 312, 42 Stat. 167; Pub. L. 85–909, § 2(5), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1750; Pub. L. 90–446, § 1(e), July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 475; Pub. L. 94–410, § 3, Sept. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 1249.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–410, § 3(a), (c), struck out “in commerce” after “or handling” and substituted “livestock” for “live stock”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 94–410, § 3(b), inserted provisions dealing with authority of Secretary to assess a civil penalty for violations and, upon failure to pay, procedure for recovery of such penalty.

1968—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 90–446 inserted “determining whether persons should be authorized to operate at stockyards, or with” after “in connection with”.

1958—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85–909 struck out “at a stockyard” after “in commerce”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases, 1928–2020 · leading case: Spencer Livestock Comm'n Co. Mike Donaldson v. Dep't of Agric., 841 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Spencer Livestock Comm'n Co. Mike Donaldson v. Dep't of Agric., 841 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1988). · cites it 9× “The complaint alleged that Donaldson had committed unfair and deceptive acts in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 213 (a). 1 Specifically, it charged Donaldson with buying livestock on a commission basis and then fraudulently billing his principals at weights and prices above, and…”
Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “1965), for example, we reviewed a decision issued by the USDA's Judicial Officer that various practices engaged in by the defendants violated § 312(a) of the PSA, 7 U.S.C. § 213 (a), "which makes it unlawful for any market agency to engage in or use any unfair, unjustly…”
United States v. Joey Haun, 124 F.3d 745 (6th Cir. 1997). · cites it 7× “7 U.S.C. § 213 (a). If the Secretary has reason to believe that any dealer or market agency is engaging in the proscribed behavior, after notice and a full hearing the Secretary may issue a cease and desist order and/or assess under statutorily- *749 prescribed criteria a civil…”
Syverson v. United States Dep't of Agric., 601 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 2010). · cites it 7× “The judicial officer determined that Syverson had engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 213 (a), and failed to keep sufficient accounts, records and memorandum of his business, in violation of 7 U.”
Hutto Stockyard, Inc. John D. Hutto Charles L. Hutto v. United States Dep't of Agric., 903 F.2d 299 (4th Cir. 1990). · cites it 5× “USDA charged Hutto with falsely weighing livestock in violation of 7 U.S.C.A. § 213 (a) (West 1980) which, inter alia, prohibits stockyard operators from using “any unfair .”
Butz v. Glover Livestock Comm'n Co., 411 U.S. 182 (1973). · cites it 2× “of livestock," 7 U. S. C. § 213 (a), and are required to "keep such accounts, records, and memoranda as fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in his business .”
Org. for Competitive Markets v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 912 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2018). “§ 192 also includes five specific prohibitions, and broad prohibitions that apply to stockyards and stockyard dealers are found in 7 U.S.C. § 213 . But subsections 192(a) and (b) are the focus of this appeal.”
Washington Gas Light Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 982 A.2d 691 (D.C. 2009). · cites it 2× “2861 , 2862 (1985) (contrasting fine which may be assessed by the Secretary under 7 U.S.C. § 213 (a) with fine which may be assessed by court under 7 U.”
Vito Balice, Individually & as the Agent of O. R. C. Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., Opinion, 203 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 3× “When Congress amended the penalty provision of the Packers and Stockyards Act in 1976, for instance, it specifically directed the USDA to consider the effect of a sanction on a person’s ability to continue in business before assessing a civil penalty for any unfair,…”
Jeffrey C. Ferguson v. United States Dep't of Agric., 911 F.2d 1273 (8th Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “Ferguson appeals from the judgment of the judicial officer of the United States Department of Agriculture finding that Ferguson engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 213 (a). Specifically, the judicial officer found that Ferguson, a cattle…”
Capitol Packing Co. v. United States, 350 F.2d 67 (10th Cir. 1965). · cites it 7× “Appellants were charged with violating § 312(a) of the Act [ 7 U.S.C.A. § 213 (a)], which makes it unlawful for any market agency “to engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device” in connection with the marketing or selling of livestock.”
Cent. Coast Meats, Inc., a California Corp. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 541 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “§ 192 (a), provides: “It shall be unlawful with respect to livestock * * * for any packer * * * to: (a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device in commerce * * § 312(a), 7 U.S.C. § 213 (a), declares: “It shall be unlawful for any * *…”
Show all 50 citing cases →
— 7 U.S.C. § 213(a) — 1 case
Fred S. Aikins v. United States & Ezra Taft Benson, Sec'y of Agric., 282 F.2d 53 (10th Cir. 1960).
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.