Agricultural products are produced in the United States by many individual farmers and ranchers scattered throughout the various States of the Nation. Such products in fresh or processed form move in large part in the channels of interstate and foreign commerce, and such products which do not move in these channels directly burden or affect interstate commerce. The efficient production and marketing of agricultural products by farmers and ranchers is of vital concern to their welfare and to the general economy of the Nation. Because agricultural products are produced by numerous individual farmers, the marketing and bargaining position of individual farmers will be adversely affected unless they are free to join together voluntarily in cooperative organizations as authorized by law. Interference with this right is contrary to the public interest and adversely affects the free and orderly flow of goods in interstate and foreign commerce.
It is, therefore, declared to be the policy of Congress and the purpose of this chapter to establish standards of fair practices required of handlers in their dealings in agricultural products.
Notes of Decisions
Nat'l Broiler Mktg. Ass'n v. United States, 436 U.S. 816 (1978).
· cites it 2× “93 , 7 U. S. C. § 2301 et seq. (1976 ed.), designed to protect the "bargaining position" of "individual farmers" by prohibiting "handlers" from interfering with the "producers'" right "to join together voluntarily in cooperative organizations as authorized by law.”
Terry v. Tyson Farms, Inc., 604 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 2010).
“1988); 7 U.S.C. § 2301 (“Because agricultural products are produced by numerous individual farmers, the marketing and bargaining position of individual farmers will be adversely affected unless they are free to join together voluntarily in cooperative organizations as authorized…”
United Wild Rice, Inc. v. Nelson, 313 N.W.2d 628 (Minn. 1982).
“48 (1980) (Uniform Trade Practices Act) and 7 U.S.C. §§ 2301— 2306 (1976) (Unfair Trade Practices Affecting Producers of Agricultural Products).”
Jackson v. Swift-Eckrich, 830 F. Supp. 486 (W.D. Ark. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Defendants urge the court to depart from the state-borrowing doctrine contending that Arkansas has no statute that is analogous to that found in the PSA Defendants argue the appropriate limitations period is the two year statute of limitations found in the Agricultural Fair…”
City of Tulsa v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 258 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (N.D. Okla. 2003).
“” 7 U.S.C. § 2301 . Interpreting the relationship between Poultry Defendants and their poultry growers under Oklahoma law does not frustrate either purpose.”
Alexander v. Nat'l Farmers' Org., 614 F. Supp. 745 (W.D. Mo. 1985).
“Paragraph IV(g) of the AMPI consent decree provides that: “(g) Interfering or attempting to interfere with the exercise of the right of any processor to buy milk from a nonmember-producer at whatever prices, terms, or conditions said processor may chose, except that nothing…”
Ripplemeyer v. Nat'l Grape Co-Op. Ass'n, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 1439 (W.D. Ark. 1992).
“” 7 U.S.C. § 2301 (1988). The Supreme Court has found that “in addition to forbidding various practices that could discourage producers from joining associations, the Act explicitly makes unlawful the coercion of a producer .”
Baldree v. Cargill, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 704 (M.D. Fla. 1990).
“(hereinafter “Packers Act”), or the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2301 et seq. (hereinafter “AFPA”).”
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.