7 U.S.C. § 608e
Repealed. July 3, 1948, ch. 827, title III, § 302(d), 62 Stat. 1258
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases, 1936–2013 · leading case: Arkansas Dairy Coop. Ass'n v. United States Dep't of Agric., 573 F.3d 815 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Arkansas Dairy Coop. Ass'n v. United States Dep't of Agric., 573 F.3d 815 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “Because there is an “insuperable objection” to the producers’ claims predicated on the Secretary’s alleged failure to consider feed and fuel costs under the AMAA, 7 U.S.C. §§ 608e(17)(G) and 608c(18), those claims in their complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.”
Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “7 U.S.C. § 608e(6); see also John H. Vetne, Federal Marketing Order Programs, in 1 Agricultural Law 75, 78 (John H.”
Lansing Dairy, Inc. v. Espy, 39 F.3d 1339 (6th Cir. 1994). “The determinative issue before the court in this appeal is whether the Secretary’s power to order location adjustments is founded solely on the grant of authority in 7 U.S.C. § 608c(5), as urged by the Secretary; or whether, as argued by the plaintiffs and held by the district…”
Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943). “However, by 7 U. S. C. § 608e the period of August 1919-July 1929 or a part thereof may be used for any commodity as to which the Secretary finds and proclaims that adequate statistics for the 1909-14 period are not available.”
Grant's Dairy—Maine, LLC v. Comm'r of Maine Dep't of Agric., Food & Rural Resources, 232 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2000). “Nor is Grant’s case enhanced by its repeated reference to 7 U.S.C. § 608e(5)(A). That proviso calls for uniform prices “as to all handlers, subject only to adjustments for (1) volume, mar *17 ket, and production differentials customarily applied by the handlers subject to such…”
Lamers Dairy Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 379 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 2004). “Second, it authorizes the Secretary to establish a uniform minimum price, termed the “blend price,” based on a weighted average of all units of production of classes of milk sold to handlers associated with a marketing area. See id.”
Fairmont Foods Co. v. Clifford M. Hardin, Sec'y of Agric., 442 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir. 1971). “7 U.S.C. § 608e(15) (A) (1964). 4 . 7 U.S.”
Alto Dairy v. Ann Veneman, Sec'y of Agric., & Cont'l Dairy Prods., Inc., Intervening, 336 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2003). “The Department asks us to infer from this silence that Congress meant to preclude judicial review by farmers, thus bringing this case within 5 U.S.”
Suntex Dairy v. John R. Block, Sec'y of Agric. of the United States, 666 F.2d 158 (5th Cir. 1982). “Judicial review of this determination could add nothing to the judicial review of the hearing provided by 7 U.S.C. § 608e(4), and such review would be duplicative and inefficient.”
United States Ex Rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Sunland Packing House Co., 912 F. Supp. 1325 (E.D. Cal. 1995). “7 U.S.C. §§ 608e(7)(C), 610. *1330 Committee members are nominated by industry groups, appointed by the Secretary, and supervised by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), an agency within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).”
Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc., 705 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2012). “Therefore, to paraphrase Gallo, the filed rate doctrine is applicable because Congress has given the USDA authority to set rates under 7 U.S.C. § 608e(5) and the USDA has exercised that authority to create the FMMOs which, in turn, are utilized to establish minimum prices for…”
Fritz Kyer v. The United States, 369 F.2d 714 (Ct. Cl. 1966). “7 U.S.C. § 608e(16) (1964). Pursuant to the authority vested in him with respect to the affairs of such agencies, the Secretary of Agriculture assumed custody of the Committee’s books and records and responsibility for its orderly liquidation, including the final distribution of…”
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(1) — 1 case
Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc. v. Butz, 390 F. Supp. 852 (E.D.N.Y 1975).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(12) — 1 case
Uelman v. Freeman, 267 F. Supp. 842 (E.D. Wis. 1967).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(13) — 3 cases
Uelman v. Freeman, 267 F. Supp. 842 (E.D. Wis. 1967).
Dairylea Coop., Inc. v. Butz, 504 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1974).
Bramsen v. Hardin, 346 F. Supp. 934 (S.D. Fla. 1972).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(15) — 14 cases
Alto Dairy v. Ann Veneman, Sec'y of Agric., & Cont'l Dairy Prods., Inc., Intervening, 336 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2003). “The Department asks us to infer from this silence that Congress meant to preclude judicial review by farmers, thus bringing this case within 5 U.S.”
Fairmont Foods Co. v. Clifford M. Hardin, Sec'y of Agric., 442 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir. 1971). “7 U.S.C. § 608e(15) (A) (1964). 4 . 7 U.S.”
Evans v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 554 (Fed. Cl. 2006).
Gore Inc. v. Glickman, 137 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 1998).
United States v. Hinman Farms Prods., Inc., 156 F. Supp. 607 (N.D.N.Y. 1957).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(15)(A) — 3 cases
Nw. Indep. Producers Ass'n v. Veneman, 312 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2004).
Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc. v. Espy, 58 F.3d 1367 (9th Cir. 1995).
Midway Farms, a California Corp. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 188 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 1999).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(15)(B) — 6 cases
Johnathan Daniel King v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 396 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
Leonard's v. Glickman, 199 F.R.D. 48 (D. Conn. 2001).
Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc. v. Espy, 58 F.3d 1367 (9th Cir. 1995).
United States v. Sunny Cove Citrus Ass'n, 854 F. Supp. 669 (E.D. Cal. 1994).
Cal-Almond, Inc. v. Dep't of Agric., 67 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 1995).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(15)(B)(1994) — 1 case
Kreider Dairy Farms, Inc. v. Glickman, 190 F.3d 113 (3rd Cir. 1999).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(16) — 1 case
Fritz Kyer v. The United States, 369 F.2d 714 (Ct. Cl. 1966). “7 U.S.C. § 608e(16) (1964). Pursuant to the authority vested in him with respect to the affairs of such agencies, the Secretary of Agriculture assumed custody of the Committee’s books and records and responsibility for its orderly liquidation, including the final distribution of…”
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(17)(G) — 1 case
Arkansas Dairy Coop. Ass'n v. United States Dep't of Agric., 573 F.3d 815 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “Because there is an “insuperable objection” to the producers’ claims predicated on the Secretary’s alleged failure to consider feed and fuel costs under the AMAA, 7 U.S.C. §§ 608e(17)(G) and 608c(18), those claims in their complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.”
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(17)(G)(ii) — 1 case
Arkansas Dairy Coop. Ass'n v. United States Dep't of Agric., 573 F.3d 815 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “Because there is an “insuperable objection” to the producers’ claims predicated on the Secretary’s alleged failure to consider feed and fuel costs under the AMAA, 7 U.S.C. §§ 608e(17)(G) and 608c(18), those claims in their complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.”
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(18) — 3 cases
Lansing Dairy, Inc. v. Espy, 39 F.3d 1339 (6th Cir. 1994). “The determinative issue before the court in this appeal is whether the Secretary’s power to order location adjustments is founded solely on the grant of authority in 7 U.S.C. § 608c(5), as urged by the Secretary; or whether, as argued by the plaintiffs and held by the district…”
Windham Creamery, Inc. v. Freeman, 230 F. Supp. 632 (D.N.J. 1964).
Minnesota Milk Producers v. Glickman, 981 F. Supp. 1224 (D. Minnesota 1997).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(3) — 1 case
Cecelia Packing Corp. v. United States Dep't of Agric./Agric. Mktg. Serv., 10 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1993).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(4) — 2 cases
Suntex Dairy v. John R. Block, Sec'y of Agric. of the United States, 666 F.2d 158 (5th Cir. 1982). “Judicial review of this determination could add nothing to the judicial review of the hearing provided by 7 U.S.C. § 608e(4), and such review would be duplicative and inefficient.”
Cal-Almond, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 14 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 1993).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(5) — 6 cases
Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc., 705 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2012). “Therefore, to paraphrase Gallo, the filed rate doctrine is applicable because Congress has given the USDA authority to set rates under 7 U.S.C. § 608e(5) and the USDA has exercised that authority to create the FMMOs which, in turn, are utilized to establish minimum prices for…”
Fairmont Foods Co. v. Clifford M. Hardin, Sec'y of Agric., 442 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir. 1971). “7 U.S.C. § 608e(15) (A) (1964). 4 . 7 U.S.”
Uelman v. Freeman, 267 F. Supp. 842 (E.D. Wis. 1967).
Inter-State Milk Producers' Coop. v. Butz, 372 F. Supp. 1010 (E.D. Pa. 1974).
Dairylea Coop., Inc. v. Butz, 504 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1974).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(5)(A) — 7 cases
Grant's Dairy—Maine, LLC v. Comm'r of Maine Dep't of Agric., Food & Rural Resources, 232 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2000). “Nor is Grant’s case enhanced by its repeated reference to 7 U.S.C. § 608e(5)(A). That proviso calls for uniform prices “as to all handlers, subject only to adjustments for (1) volume, mar *17 ket, and production differentials customarily applied by the handlers subject to such…”
Lamers Dairy Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 379 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 2004). “Second, it authorizes the Secretary to establish a uniform minimum price, termed the “blend price,” based on a weighted average of all units of production of classes of milk sold to handlers associated with a marketing area. See id.”
Lansing Dairy, Inc. v. Espy, 39 F.3d 1339 (6th Cir. 1994). “The determinative issue before the court in this appeal is whether the Secretary’s power to order location adjustments is founded solely on the grant of authority in 7 U.S.C. § 608c(5), as urged by the Secretary; or whether, as argued by the plaintiffs and held by the district…”
US EX REL. FELLHOELTER v. Valley Milk Prods., 617 F. Supp. 2d 723 (E.D. Tenn. 2008).
Marchezak v. McKinley, 607 F.2d 37 (3rd Cir. 1979).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(5)(B) — 1 case
Smyser v. Block, 580 F. Supp. 1397 (M.D. Penn. 1984).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(5)(B)(c) — 1 case
Don Walmsley v. John R. Block, Sec'y of Agric. of the United States Mid-Am. Dairymen, Inc., 719 F.2d 1414 (8th Cir. 1983).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(5)(B)(ii)(f) — 1 case
White Eagle Coop. Assoc. v. Johanns, 508 F. Supp. 2d 664 (N.D. Ind. 2007).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(5)(C) — 1 case
White Eagle Cooperat v. Vilsack, Thomas J., 553 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2009).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(5)(G) — 3 cases
Sani-dairy, a Div. Of Penn Traffic Co. v. Espy, 939 F. Supp. 410 (W.D. Pa. 1993).
Sani-Dairy v. Yeutter, 935 F. Supp. 608 (W.D. Pa. 1995).
Dairylea Coop., Inc. v. Butz, 504 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1974).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(6) — 3 cases
Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “7 U.S.C. § 608e(6); see also John H. Vetne, Federal Marketing Order Programs, in 1 Agricultural Law 75, 78 (John H.”
Fritz Kyer v. The United States, 369 F.2d 714 (Ct. Cl. 1966). “7 U.S.C. § 608e(16) (1964). Pursuant to the authority vested in him with respect to the affairs of such agencies, the Secretary of Agriculture assumed custody of the Committee’s books and records and responsibility for its orderly liquidation, including the final distribution of…”
Bramsen v. Hardin, 346 F. Supp. 934 (S.D. Fla. 1972).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(6)(A) — 1 case
Koretoff v. Schaefer, 841 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(6)(C) — 1 case
Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479 (9th Cir. 1992).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(6)(E) — 1 case
Evans v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 554 (Fed. Cl. 2006).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(6)(I) — 1 case
Cal-Almond Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 192 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 1999).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(7)(C) — 1 case
United States Ex Rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Sunland Packing House Co., 912 F. Supp. 1325 (E.D. Cal. 1995). “7 U.S.C. §§ 608e(7)(C), 610. *1330 Committee members are nominated by industry groups, appointed by the Secretary, and supervised by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), an agency within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).”
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(8) — 2 cases
Lansing Dairy, Inc. v. Espy, 39 F.3d 1339 (6th Cir. 1994). “The determinative issue before the court in this appeal is whether the Secretary’s power to order location adjustments is founded solely on the grant of authority in 7 U.S.C. § 608c(5), as urged by the Secretary; or whether, as argued by the plaintiffs and held by the district…”
United States Ex Rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Sunland Packing House Co., 912 F. Supp. 1325 (E.D. Cal. 1995). “7 U.S.C. §§ 608e(7)(C), 610. *1330 Committee members are nominated by industry groups, appointed by the Secretary, and supervised by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), an agency within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).”
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(9) — 1 case
The Lawson Milk Co. v. Orville L. Freeman, Sec'y of Agric., the Lawson Milk Co. v. Orville L. Freeman, Sec'y of Agric., 358 F.2d 647 (6th Cir. 1966).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(9)(B) — 2 cases
Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “7 U.S.C. § 608e(6); see also John H. Vetne, Federal Marketing Order Programs, in 1 Agricultural Law 75, 78 (John H.”
Suntex Dairy v. John R. Block, Sec'y of Agric. of the United States, 666 F.2d 158 (5th Cir. 1982). “Judicial review of this determination could add nothing to the judicial review of the hearing provided by 7 U.S.C. § 608e(4), and such review would be duplicative and inefficient.”
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(9)(B)(i) — 1 case
Koretoff v. Vilsack, 614 F.3d 532 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
— 7 U.S.C. § 608e(l) — 3 cases
Bailey Farm Dairy Co. v. Anderson, 157 F.2d 87 (8th Cir. 1946).
Windham Creamery, Inc. v. Orville L. Freeman, Sec'y of Agric., 350 F.2d 978 (3rd Cir. 1965).
Cloverland-Green Spring Dairies, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Milk Mktg. Bd., 462 F.3d 249 (3rd Cir. 2006).
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.