7 U.S.C. § 292

Monopolizing or restraining trade and unduly enhancing prices prohibited; remedy and procedure

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

If the Secretary of Agriculture shall have reason to believe that any such association monopolizes or restrains trade in interstate or foreign commerce to such an extent that the price of any agricultural product is unduly enhanced by reason thereof, he shall serve upon such association a complaint stating his charge in that respect, to which complaint shall be attached, or contained therein, a notice of hearing, specifying a day and place not less than thirty days after the service thereof, requiring the association to show cause why an order should not be made directing it to cease and desist from monopolization or restraint of trade. An association so complained of may at the time and place so fixed show cause why such order should not be entered. The evidence given on such a hearing shall be taken under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe, reduced to writing, and made a part of the record therein. If upon such hearing the Secretary of Agriculture shall be of the opinion that such association monopolizes or restrains trade in interstate or foreign commerce to such an extent that the price of any agricultural product is unduly enhanced thereby, he shall issue and cause to be served upon the association an order reciting the facts found by him, directing such association to cease and desist from monopolization or restraint of trade. On the request of such association or if such association fails or neglects for thirty days to obey such order, the Secretary of Agriculture shall file in the district court in the judicial district in which such association has its principal place of business a certified copy of the order and of all the records in the proceeding, together with a petition asking that the order be enforced, and shall give notice to the Attorney General and to said association of such filing. Such district court shall thereupon have jurisdiction to enter a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside said order, or enter such other decree as the court may deem equitable, and may make rules as to pleadings and proceedings to be had in considering such order. The place of trial may, for cause or by consent of parties, be changed as in other causes.

The facts found by the Secretary of Agriculture and recited or set forth in said order shall be prima facie evidence of such facts, but either party may adduce additional evidence. The Department of Justice shall have charge of the enforcement of such order. After the order is so filed in such district court and while pending for review therein the court may issue a temporary writ of injunction forbidding such association from violating such order or any part thereof. The court may, upon conclusion of its hearing, enforce its decree by a permanent injunction or other appropriate remedy. Service of such complaint and of all notices may be made upon such association by service upon any officer or agent thereof engaged in carrying on its business, or on any attorney authorized to appear in such proceedings for such association, and such service shall be binding upon such association, the officers, and members thereof.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases, 1939–2014 · leading case: Nat'l Broiler Mktg. Ass'n v. United States, 436 U.S. 816 (1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nat'l Broiler Mktg. Ass'n v. United States, 436 U.S. 816 (1978). · cites it 2× “" Section 2 of the Act, 7 U. S. C. § 292 (1976 ed.), provides for certain regulation of the association by the Secretary of Agriculture.”

Jarita Mesa Livestock Grazing Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 58 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (D.N.M. 2014). · cites it 2× “The closest is rule 81(a)(6)(A), which applies to actions brought under " 7 U.S.C. §§ 292 , 499g(c), for reviewing an order of the Secretary of Agriculture.”

Hiatt Grain & Feed, Inc. v. Bergland, 446 F. Supp. 457 (D. Kan. 1978). · cites it 2× “§ 1 , and Section 2 of the Capper-Volstead Act, 7 U.S.C. § 292 . Section 1 of the Sherman Act declares illegal contracts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce.”

Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Assn., Inc. v. United States, 362 U.S. 458 (1960). “7 Capper-Yolstead Act §2: “If the Secretary of Agriculture shall have reason to believe that any such association monopolizes or restfains trade in interstate or foreign commerce to such an extent that the price of any agricultural product is unduly enhanced by reason thereof…”

United States of Am., Cross-Appellee v. Dairymen, Inc., Cross-Appellant, 660 F.2d 192 (6th Cir. 1982). “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.”

Schepps Dairy, Inc., a Corp. v. Bob Bergland, Sec'y, Dep't of Agric., 628 F.2d 11 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “See 7 U.S.C. § 292 (1976). . See, e. g., United States v.”

N. California Supermarkets, Inc. v. Cent. California Lettuce Producers Coop., 413 F. Supp. 984 (N.D. Cal. 1976). “Protection against excessive prices or predatory practices was provided by Section 2 of Capper-Volstead, which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a cease-and-desist order upon a finding that a cooperative has monopolized or restrained trade to such an extent that…”

Mktg. Assistance Plan, Inc. v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 338 F. Supp. 1019 (S.D. Tex. 1972). · cites it 2× “§ 13 (a), and of the “Capper-Volstead Act,” 7 U.S.C. § 292 , and of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, 7 U.”

April v. Nat'l Cranberry Ass'n, 168 F. Supp. 919 (D. Mass. 1958). · cites it 2× “This amendment would have substituted for the present section 2, 7 U.S.C.A. § 292 , a provision explicitly making applicable to the cooperatives all laws prohibiting monopolization.”

Fairdale Farms, Inc. v. Yankee Milk, Inc. & Reg'l Coop. Mktg. Agency, Inc., Defendants, 715 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1984). “Congress wisely has protected against this possibility, however, by authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a cease and desist order against any monopolization by a cooperative which has “unduly enhanced” the price of any agricultural product.”

United States v. Maryland Coop. Milk Producers, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 151 (D.D.C. 1956). “Such an order is subject to judicial review, 7 U.S.C.A. § 292 . In 1926, these provisions were further fortified by the Co-operative Marketing Act, 7 U.”

United States v. Borden Co., 28 F. Supp. 177 (N.D. Ill. 1939). “Section 2, 7 U.S.C.A. § 292 , recognizes that cooperative associations, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them by section 1, may monopolize or restrain interstate trade.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

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.