7 U.S.C. § 241
Definitions
In this chapter:(1) Agricultural productThe term “agricultural product” means an agricultural commodity, as determined by the Secretary, including a processed product of an agricultural commodity.
(2) ApprovalThe term “approval” means the consent provided by the Secretary for a person to engage in an activity authorized by this chapter.
(3) DepartmentThe term “Department” means the Department of Agriculture.
(4) Electronic documentThe term “electronic document” means a document that is generated, sent, received, or stored by electronic, optical, or similar means, including electronic data interchange, electronic mail, telegram, telex, or telecopy.
(5) Electronic receiptThe term “electronic receipt” means a receipt that is authorized by the Secretary to be issued or transmitted under this chapter in the form of an electronic document.
(6) HolderThe term “holder” means a person that has possession in fact or by operation of law of a receipt or any electronic document.
(7) PersonThe term “person” means—(A) a person (as defined in section 1 of title 1);(B) a State; and(C) a political subdivision of a State.(8) ReceiptThe term “receipt” means a warehouse receipt issued in accordance with this chapter, including an electronic receipt.
(9) SecretaryThe term “Secretary” means the Secretary of Agriculture.
(10) WarehouseThe term “warehouse” means a structure or other approved storage facility, as determined by the Secretary, in which any agricultural product may be stored or handled for the purposes of interstate or foreign commerce.
(11) Warehouse operatorThe term “warehouse operator” means a person that is lawfully engaged in the business of storing or handling agricultural products.
(Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, pt. C, § 2, as added Pub. L. 106–472, title II, § 201, Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2061.)Editorial NotesCodificationThis chapter constitutes part C of “An act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 13, 1917, and for other purposes,” approved Aug. 11, 1916. Part A of act of Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, containing the “United States Cotton Futures Act” formerly classified to chapter 13 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, was repealed by section 4 of act Feb. 10, 1939, ch. 2, 53 Stat. 1. Part B of that act contained the “United States Grain Standards Act” and constitutes section 71 et seq. of this title.
Prior ProvisionsA prior section 241, act Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, pt. C, § 1, 39 Stat. 486, set forth short title, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 106–472.
A prior section 2 of act Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, pt. C, was classified to section 242 of this title, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 106–472.
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort TitleAct Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, pt. C, § 1, as added by Pub. L. 106–472, title II, § 201, Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2061, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘United States Warehouse Act’.”
Effective Date; RegulationsPub. L. 106–472, title II, § 202, Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2068, provided that:“(a)Proposed Regulations.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 9, 2000], the Secretary of Agriculture shall publish in the Federal Register proposed regulations for carrying out the amendment made by section 201 [enacting this chapter].“(b)Final Regulations.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate final regulations for carrying out the amendment made by section 201.“(c)Effectiveness of Existing Act.—The United States Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 241 et seq.) (as it existed before the amendment made by section 201) shall be effective until the earlier of—“(1) the date on which final regulations are promulgated under subsection (b); or“(2)August 1, 2001.”
Notes of Decisions
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947).
· cites it 2× “486 , as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 241 et seq. The Rice partnership, one of the petitioners, is an owner, shipper, and dealer in grain and is a customer of respondents.”
Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988).
“486 , as *311 amended, 7 U. S. C. § 241 et seq. (1946 ed.), through licensing provisions, regulated the facilities, rates, and services of grain warehouses.”
United States v. Robert Kirby & James Curtis, 587 F.2d 876 (7th Cir. 1978).
· cites it 3× “§ 1001 as another object of the conspiracy charges that defendants caused false and incorrect United States Warehouse Act inspection and weight certificates to be executed and issued under the Warehouse Act ( 7 U.S.C. §§ 241 et seq.). Counsel for defendants again argues that…”
Jon-T Farms, Inc. v. Goodpasture, Inc., 554 S.W.2d 743 (Tex. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Corroborating the results indicated by the "pink certificates" admitted by the trial court were grain inspection certificates issued by an inspector licensed under the United States Warehouse Act, 7 U.S.C. § 241 . This man took samples from each of the 24 truckloads and graded…”
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Iowa 2011).
· cites it 4× “corn has not received approval from “major” export destinations, and post signs stating this, when the seed producer has received clearances from the United States and several foreign countries, but not from China or the European Union? The seed producer argues that the grain…”
Thompson v. Stand. Oil Co. of New Jersey, 67 F.2d 644 (4th Cir. 1933).
· cites it 2× “(2d) 193 , a suit was held removable as arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, where it was brought to recover the value of cotton which had been burned in a warehouse licensed under the United States Warehouse Act (see 7 USCA § 241 et seq.). In Rury v.…”
Marlow v. Oakland Gin Co. (In Re Julien Co.), 128 B.R. 987 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1991).
“UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT Oakland raised at oral argument that The Julien Warehouse, acting through its manager Federal Compress, was subject to the United States Warehouse Act, 7 U.S.C. § 241 et seq., which imposed a statutory duty on the warehouse to return the goods to…”
Rice v. Bd. of Trade of Chicago, 331 U.S. 247 (1947).
“486 , as amended, 7 U. S. C. § 241 et seq., shall be accepted with *251 out discrimination in satisfaction of futures contracts made on or subject to the rules of the contract market, even though the warehouseman is not also licensed under state law or enjoys different…”
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.