7 U.S.C. § 601
Declaration of conditions
It is declared that the disruption of the orderly exchange of commodities in interstate commerce impairs the purchasing power of farmers and destroys the value of agricultural assets which support the national credit structure and that these conditions affect transactions in agricultural commodities with a national public interest, and burden and obstruct the normal channels of interstate commerce.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 506
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1934–2021 · leading case: H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525 (1949).
H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525 (1949). “" 7 U.S.C. § 601 , it seems clear that we can not sustain the State's argument that its restrictions here involved supplement and further the federal scheme.”
Arkansas Dairy Coop. Ass'n v. United States Dep't of Agric., 573 F.3d 815 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “Several producers and producer cooperatives challenged the increases principally on the ground that the Secretary had failed to determine and consider their food and fuel costs, which they maintain was required by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act ("AMAA"), 7 U.S.C. §§…”
Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc., 521 U.S. 457 (1997). “246 , as amended, 7 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., in order to establish and maintain orderly marketing conditions and fair prices for agricultural commodities.”
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons, 12 P.3d 720 (Cal. 2000). “, as amended, codified at 7 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.) The AMAA declared, as one of Congress's policies, the establishing and maintaining of orderly marketing conditions for agricultural commodities in order to raise and support prices for their producers.”
United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405 (2001). “246 , 7 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., the compelled contributions for advertising are not part of some broader regulatory scheme.”
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963). “The federal marketing regulations were adopted pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 7 U. S. C. §§ 601 et seq. The declared purposes of the Act are to restore and maintain parity prices for the benefit of producers of agricultural commodities, to ensure the stable and…”
Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168 (1970). “246 , 7 U. S. C. § 601 et seq. (1964 ed. and Supp.”
Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288 (1944). “246 , 7 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq., and Order 4, United States Department of Agriculture, Surplus Marketing Administration, Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 904.”
Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “We disagree, and hold that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over takings claims against the United States based on the actions of the RAC, because the RAC is an agent of the United States.”
PDK Labs. Inc. v. United States Drug Enf't Admin., 362 F.3d 786 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “The Supreme Court in Block so interpreted the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 7 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., in holding that consumers could not bring actions for judicial review of the Agriculture Secretary’s milk marketing orders.”
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Jacobsen, 362 U.S. 73 (1960). “Appellants' complaint seeks injunction against the operation of § 792 of the California Agricultural Code on the grounds that it is in conflict with the Federal Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 7 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., and the Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses…”
Dixson v. United States, 465 U.S. 482 (1984). “7 U. S. C. §§ 601 , 608c (1940 ed.). As such, the Act was an early form of federal assistance program, and, in its present form, is still classified as such.”
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.