7 U.S.C. § 222
Federal Trade Commission powers adopted for enforcement of chapter
For the efficient execution of the provisions of this chapter, and in order to provide information for the use of Congress, the provisions (including penalties) of sections 46 and 48 to 50 of title 15, are made applicable to the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the Secretary in enforcing the provisions of this chapter and to any person subject to the provisions of this chapter, whether or not a corporation. The Secretary, in person or by such agents as he may designate, may prosecute any inquiry necessary to his duties under this chapter in any part of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1941–2024 · leading case: United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409 (1941).
United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409 (1941). “The examiner refused to order production of the reports on the ground that he had no authority to do so, basing his ruling on a section which the Packers and Stockyards Act incorporates from the Federal Trade Commission Act and which provides that it shall be a misdemeanor for…”
Davis v. United States (In Re Farmers & Ranchers Livestock Auction, Inc.), 46 B.R. 781 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1984). “The Investigation of the Debtors In connection with the Secretary’s responsibility to protect the public welfare, 7 U.S.C. § 222 and 9 C.F.R. § 201.3 authorize the Packers and Stockyards Administration to investigate possible violations of the Act by market agencies or dealers…”
United States v. Andrew E. Hill & J.E. Pinkerton, United States of Am. v. Dennis Juren, United States of Am. v. Edward W. Cromey, 694 F.2d 258 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “7 U.S.C. § 222 (1976) (Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921); 7 U.”
United States v. William D. Cammisano, 546 F.2d 238 (8th Cir. 1976). “§§ 610 , 676), Packers & Stockyards Act ( 7 U.S.C. § 222 and 15 U.S.C. § 50 ), and conspiracy ( 18 U.”
United States of Am., Cross-Appellee v. W. H. Hodges & Co., Inc., Cross-Appellants, 533 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1976). “The Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. § 222 , incorporates certain investigative and enforcement powers of the Federal Trade Commission including, inter alia, the power to require the filing, within a reasonable period, of “annual or special, or both annual and special,…”
United States v. Marvin D. Lehman, 887 F.2d 1328 (7th Cir. 1989). “Section 402, 7 U.S.C. § 222 , of the Act adopts the provisions of Sections 6, 8-10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, Title 15, so that the access and subpoena powers of the FTC are by reference incorporated into the Packers and Stockyards Act.”
In Re FTC Corp. Patterns Report Litig., 432 F. Supp. 291 (D.D.C. 1977). “For the same reasons the court does not consider the FTC’s claim that, even if the programs are rules, they fall within the section 553 exception for “general statements of policy.”
United States v. Nour Halal Meat Distrib., Inc., 505 F. Supp. 2d 275 (W.D. Pa. 2007). “§ 49 , which is made applicable to this action by Section 402 of the P&S Act, 7 U.S.C. § 222 . I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Pursuant to Section 6 of the FTC Act, 15 U.”
Bowles v. Chew, 53 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal. 1944). “2d 133 , where the demand of the Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant to § 402 of Packers and Stock Yards Act 1921, 7 U.S.C.A. § 222 , for access to and right to copy books of account and records of plaintiff packing company was held unreasonable and violative of the Fourth…”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Cockrell, 431 F. Supp. 561 (D.D.C. 1977). “Both of these statutes expressly incorporate the scope of section 9 of the FTC Act, and both courts concluded that the scope of that subpoena power extended to parties that were not subject to the regulatory authority of the agency issuing the subpoena.”
United States v. Marshall Durbin & Co. Of Haleyville, Inc., & Marshall Durbin Broiler Prod., Inc., 363 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1966). “7 U.S.C. § 222 . 4 . 7 U.S.C. § 192 . 5 .”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. John R. Harrell & Natalia E. Harrell, 313 F.2d 854 (7th Cir. 1963). “168 ; 7 U.S.C. § 222 ), and in the Fair Labor Standards Act ( 52 Stat.”
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.