7 U.S.C. § 361a

Congressional declaration of purpose; definitions

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

It is the policy of Congress to continue the agricultural research at State agricultural experiment stations which has been encouraged and supported by the Hatch Act of 1887 [7 U.S.C. 361a et seq.], the Adams Act of 1906, the Purnell Act of 1925, the Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935, and title I, section 9, of that Act as added by the Act of August 14, 1946, and Acts amendatory and supplementary thereto, and to promote the efficiency of such research by a codification and simplification of such laws. As used in this Act [7 U.S.C. 361a et seq.], the terms “State” or “States” are defined to include the several States (including the District of Columbia), Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands. As used in this Act [7 U.S.C. 361a et seq.], the term “State agricultural experiment station” means a department which shall have been established, under direction of the college or university or agricultural departments of the college or university in each State in accordance with an Act approved July 2, 1862, (12 Stat. 503), entitled “An Act donating public lands to the several States and Territo­ries which may provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts” [7 U.S.C. 301 et seq.]; or such other substantially equivalent arrangements as any State shall determine.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1965–1994 · leading case: Knight v. State of Ala.
Knight v. State of Ala. (1991) alnd “, codified with some differences in language at 7 U.S.C. § 361a et seq. This act made annual appropriations to the “college or colleges” established under the First Morrill Act, “or any of the supplements to the Act, in each state for the purpose of setting up agricultural…”
Knight v. Alabama (1994) ca11 “Each year Alabama receives approximately $4 million from the federal government, mostly pursuant to the Hatch Act, 7 U.S.C. § 361a et seq., to fund agricultural research in the state.”
United States v. Baker (1965) pamd “” 7 U.S.C. § 361a. Agricultural Experiment Stations.”
California Agrarian Action Project, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California (1989) calctapp “We reverse the judgment declaring the University of California in violation of the federal Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. § 361a et seq.). The University of California is not required to establish an administrative process to ensure that Hatch Act funds for agricultural research…”
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.