7 U.S.C. § 228c

Federal preemption of State and local requirements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar

No requirement of any State or territory of the United States, or any subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, with respect to bonding of packers or prompt payment by packers for livestock purchases may be enforced upon any packer operating in compliance with the bonding provisions under section 204 of this title, and prompt payment provisions of section 228b of this title, respectively: Provided, That this section shall not preclude a State from enforcing a requirement, with respect to payment for livestock purchased by a packer at a stockyard subject to this chapter, which is not in conflict with this chapter or regulations thereunder: Provided further, That this section shall not preclude a State from enforcing State law or regulations with respect to any packer not subject to this chapter or section 204 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1978–1999 · leading case: Fillippo v. S. Bonaccurso & Sons, Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fillippo v. S. Bonaccurso & Sons, Inc. (1978) paed · cites it 3× “3) Even granting the truth of SBI’s assertion that plaintiff’s were not “cash sales” under the Act but were sales on credit on a “dressed weight” basis, SBI’s admission that it owes plaintiff $79,212.52 entitles plaintiff to recover on the debt.”

Hedrick v. S. Bonaccurso & Sons, Inc. (1978) paed “See also, 7 U.S.C. § 228c; Pa.Stat. Ann. tit. 12A § 9-104(a).”

American Manufacturing Mutual Insurance v. Tison Hog Market, Inc. (1999) ca11 “” 7 U.S.C. § 228c. It also provides, however, that "this section shall not preclude a State from enforcing a requirement, with respect to payment for livestock purchased by a packer at a stockyard subject to this chapter, which is not in conflict with this chapter or regulations…”

Cooper v. American Automobile Insurance (1992) ca10 “See 7 U.S.C. § 228c (Federal preemption of State and local requirements).”

American Manufacturers v. Tison Hog (1999) ca11 “” 7 U.S.C. § 228c. It also provides, however, that “this section shall not preclude a State from enforcing a requirement, with respect to payment for livestock purchased by a packer at a stockyard subject to this chapter, which is not in conflict with this chapter or regulations…”

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.