7 U.S.C. § 2908

Enforcement

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

(a) Restraining order; civil penaltyIf the Secretary believes that the administration and enforcement of this chapter or an order would be adequately served by such procedure, following an opportunity for an administrative hearing on the record, the Secretary may—(1) issue an order to restrain or prevent a person from violating an order; and(2) assess a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for violation of such order.(b) Jurisdiction of district court

The district courts of the United States are vested with jurisdiction specifically to enforce, and to prevent and restrain a person from violating, an order or regulation made or issued under this chapter.

A civil action authorized to be brought under this section shall be referred to the Attorney General for appropriate action.

(Pub. L. 94–294, § 9, May 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 534; Pub. L. 95–334, title III, § 302, Aug. 4, 1978, 92 Stat. 433; Pub. L. 99–198, title XVI, § 1601(b), Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1605.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1985—Pub. L. 99–198 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to enforcement for provisions relating to referendum and cattle producer approval of orders, reimbursement of expenses by Secretary, procedural requirements, and bonding requirements.

1978—Pub. L. 95–334 substituted “a majority” for “not less than two-thirds”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1985 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–198 effective Jan. 1, 1986, see section 1601(c) of Pub. L. 99–198, set out as a note under section 2901 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1987–2003 · leading case: United States v. L. Robert Frame, Sr. & Vintage Sales Stables, Inc., 885 F.2d 1119 (3rd Cir. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. L. Robert Frame, Sr. & Vintage Sales Stables, Inc., 885 F.2d 1119 (3rd Cir. 1989). · cites it 8× “7 U.S.C. § 2908 (b) & (c). Within twenty-two months of the issuance of the Order, the Secretary was required to conduct a referendum among those persons who were producers and importers during the trial period.”

Orleans Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 5× “The court so held for two reasons: First, 7 U.S.C. § 2908 (b) specifically vests the district courts with jurisdiction ‘to enforce, and to prevent and restrain a person from violating, an order or regulation made or issued’ under the Beef Act.”

United States v. Frame, 658 F. Supp. 1476 (E.D. Pa. 1987). “7 U.S.C. §§ 2908 (b), (c). Defendants’ Arguments Defendants make four broad attacks on the constitutionality of the legislation: 1.”

Orleans Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). · cites it 5× “Orleans argues Defendant ignores that this action only concerns the Beef Act as applied to imports of beef and beef products, not as applied to domestic sales of beef and beef products — an issue currently pending in the district courts.”

Goetz v. United States, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (D. Kan. 2000). · cites it 7× “The Administrator sought the issuance of an order or orders as authorized under the BPA, including an order requiring Goetz to cease and desist from violating the Beef Promotion Order and Beef Promotion Regulations and assessing civil penalties against Goetz in accordance with…”

Goetz v. United States Dep't of Agric., 12 F. App'x 718 (10th Cir. 2001). “” 7 U.S.C. § 2908 (a)(2). Goetz argues that this allows only one $5,000 penalty after any administrative hearing.”

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.