U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 10— WAREHOUSES

7 U.S.C. § 255

Jurisdiction and arbitration

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Federal jurisdiction

A district court of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any action brought under this chapter without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties.

(b) Arbitration

Nothing in this chapter prevents the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate that would otherwise be enforceable under chapter 1 of title 9.

(Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, pt. C, § 16, as added Pub. L. 106–472, title II, § 201, Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2068.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 255, act Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, pt. C, § 14, 39 Stat. 488, deemed deposit of products in a licensed warehouse as deposit subject to this chapter, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 106–472.

A prior section 16 of act Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, pt. C, was classified to section 258 of this title, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 106–472.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: In re the Julien Co., Debtor. Oakland Gin Co., Inc. v. Jack Marlow, Tr. for the Julien Co., 44 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Julien Co., Debtor. Oakland Gin Co., Inc. v. Jack Marlow, Tr. for the Julien Co., 44 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 1995). “Finally, § 262 itself speaks of the warehouseman’s duty to turn over “products stored.”
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North Am., Inc., 773 F.3d 58 (8th Cir. 2014). “Syngenta nonetheless argues the statutory structure weighs in favor of finding an implied cause of action here, pointing to 7 U.S.C. § 255 . Section 255, however, is merely a jurisdictional statute.”
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Iowa 2011). · cites it 2× “7 U.S.C. § 255 . The only USDA regulation pursuant to the USWA that the parties have identified as pertinent here provides as follows: § 735.”
IFG Port Holdings LLC v. South Louisiana Rail Facility LLC, No. 2:24-cv-01095 (W.D. La. Sept. 26, 2025). · cites it 2× “” 7 U.S.C. § 255 . The court finds no support for SLRF’s proposition that the federal courts have “exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes regarding the storage and handling of grain by a federally licensed warehouse.”
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North Am., Inc., No. 13-1391 (8th Cir. Aug. 8, 2014). “Syngenta nonetheless argues the statutory structure weighs in favor of finding an implied cause of action here, pointing to 7 U.S.C. § 255 . Section 255, however, is merely a jurisdictional statute.”
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North Am., Inc., 762 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2014). “Syngenta nonetheless argues the statutory structure weighs in favor of finding an implied cause of action here, pointing to 7 U.S.C. § 255 . Section 255, however, is merely a jurisdictional statute.”
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.