Persons engaged in the production of agricultural products as farmers, planters, ranchmen, dairymen, nut or fruit growers may act together in associations, corporate or otherwise, with or without capital stock, in collectively processing, preparing for market, handling, and marketing in interstate and foreign commerce, such products of persons so engaged. Such associations may have marketing agencies in common; and such associations and their members may make the necessary contracts and agreements to effect such purposes: Provided, however, That such associations are operated for the mutual benefit of the members thereof, as such producers, and conform to one or both of the following requirements:
First. That no member of the association is allowed more than one vote because of the amount of stock or membership capital he may own therein, or,
Second. That the association does not pay dividends on stock or membership capital in excess of 8 per centum per annum.
And in any case to the following:
Third. That the association shall not deal in the products of nonmembers to an amount greater in value than such as are handled by it for members.
Notes of Decisions
Nat'l Broiler Mktg. Ass'n v. United States, 436 U.S. 816 (1978).
· cites it 10× “388 , 7 U. S. C. § 291 (1976 ed.). [4] On motion and cross-motion for partial summary judgment, the District Court concluded that the involvement of all the members of NBMA in the production of broiler chickens was sufficient to justify their classification as "farmers," within…”
Terry v. Tyson Farms, Inc., 604 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “” 7 U.S.C. § 291 . “The real sense behind such an association and the prime purpose of the persons so banding together is to accomplish a common objective — collective marketing.”
Grp. Life & Health Ins. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205 (1979).
· cites it 2× “388 , 7 U. S. C. § 291 (emphasis added). As a result, this Court has held that agreements involving nonfarmers are not exempt.”
Case-Swayne Co. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 389 U.S. 384 (1968).
· cites it 7× “388 , 7 U. S. C. § 291 , [2] and therefore could *386 not be held for any intraorganizational conspiracy to restrain trade.”
In re Fresh & Process Potatoes Antitrust Litig., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D. Idaho 2011).
· cites it 3× “7 U.S.C. § 291 . The Capper-Volstead Act clarified and expanded the antitrust exemption for cooperatives found in Section 6 of the Clayton Act, which provided that: Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor,…”
Agritronics Corp. v. Nat'l Dairy Herd Ass'n, 914 F. Supp. 814 (N.D.N.Y. 1996).
· cites it 5× “7 U.S.C. § 291 . The Capper-Volstead Act extends the scope of antitrust exemption granted to agricultural cooperatives by Section 6 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.”
Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., 748 F. Supp. 2d 323 (D. Vt. 2010).
· cites it 2× “” 7 U.S.C. § 291 . The Act does not, however, extend immunity for conduct “outside the ‘legitimate objects’ of a cooperative,” including restraining or monopolizing trade, or suppressing competition.”
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.