The Secretary may make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, and may cooperate with any department or agency of the Government, any State, Territory, District, or possession, or department, agency, or political subdivision thereof, or any person; and shall have the power to appoint, remove, and fix the compensation of such officers and employees not in conflict with existing law, and make such expenditures for rent outside the District of Columbia, printing, binding, telegrams, telephones, lawbooks, books of reference, publications, furniture, stationery, office equipment, travel, and other supplies and expenses, including reporting services, as shall be necessary to the administration of this chapter in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, from the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act fund provided for by section 499c(b) of this title and any supplements to such fund, and as may be appropriated for by Congress; and there is authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary for such purposes. This chapter shall not abrogate nor nullify any other statute, whether State or Federal, dealing with the same subjects of this chapter; but it is intended that all such statutes shall remain in full force and effect except insofar only as they are inconsistent herewith or repugnant hereto.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1937–2021 · leading case:
In re Spiech Farms, LLC, 592 B.R. 152 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2018).
In re Spiech Farms, LLC, 592 B.R. 152 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2018).
· cites it 2× “As a threshold matter, the court must determine whether PACA or state commercial law applies to the passage of title to perishable agricultural commodities.”
Dairy Fresh Foods, Inc. v. Ramette (In re Country Club Mkt., Inc.), 175 B.R. 1011 (D. Minnesota 1994).
· cites it 2× “Express Preemption The scope of PACA is defined by 7 U.S.C. § 499o. Congress intended that, with respect to PACA, state statutes would “remain in full force and effect except insofar only as they are inconsistent herewith or repugnant hereto.”
In Re L. Nat. Foods Corp., 199 B.R. 882 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1996).
“Observing, however, that 7 U.S.C. § 499o contains a specific grant of authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate regulations that may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act, it appears that the cited regulation, 7 C.”
Iwata v. W. Fruit Growers, Inc., 90 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1937).
“By section 15 (7 U.S.C.A. § 499o) the Secretary of Agriculture was authorized to make such regulations as might be necessary to carry out the provisions of [he act.”
Magic Restaurants, Inc. v. Bowie Produce Co., 205 F.3d 108 (3rd Cir. 2000).
“See 7 U.S.C. § 499o. These USDA regulations define “dealer” as: any person engaged in the business of buying or selling in wholesale or jobbing quantities in commerce and includes: (1) Jobbers, distributors and other wholesaler s; (2) Retailers, when the invoice cost of all…”
Cossa & Sons v. Tani Farms (In re Altabon Foods, Inc.), 998 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Combined with the general grant of rulemak-ing power in 7 U.S.C. § 499o, the legislative history unambiguously demonstrates that Congress intended the Department of Agriculture to set a maximum period for private agreements to extend the payment period.”
H. Rouw Co. v. Crivella, 105 F.2d 434 (8th Cir. 1939).
“” Section 15, 7 U.S.C.A. § 499o. On August 4, 1934, the Secretary promulgated the following rule: “If either party appeals from a reparation order entered by the secretary without formal hearing as provided in subdivision D of Section 6 of the act, the suit shall be filed in the…”
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.