7 U.S.C. § 614

Separability

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

If any provision of this chapter is declared unconstitutional, or the applicability thereof to any person, circumstance, or commodity is held invalid the validity of the remainder of this chapter and the applicability thereof to other persons, circumstances, or commodities shall not be affected thereby.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1935–1997 · leading case: United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997).
United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997). · cites it 2× “4 (" 7 U. S. C. § 614 (b—3)(3) (penalizing those who make false statement in application for tax-payment warrant); 7 U.”
United States v. Michael E. Gaudin, 28 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 1994). “See 7 U.S.C. § 614 (b-3)(3) (penalizing those who make false statement in application for tax-payment warrant); 7 U.”
United States v. David Buttrick Co., 91 F.2d 66 (1st Cir. 1937). “Section 14 ( 7 U.S.C.A. § 614 ). Even section 2, subdivision (1), 7 U.”
Edwards v. United States, 91 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1937). · cites it 2× “The separability section of the statute (section 14, 7 U.S.C.A. § 614 ), and its provisions that the unconstitutionality of one set of provisions shall not affect provisions satisfying the Constitution, refute the contention.”
Rieder v. Rogan, 12 F. Supp. 307 (S.D. Cal. 1935). “In the last analysis, in dealing with the adequacy of a particular remedy, the object .”
United States v. Edwards, 14 F. Supp. 384 (S.D. Cal. 1936). “Their purpose is to regulate market conditions in agricultural products by the use of the authority to regulate commerce. They are a distinct part of the act unconnected with the portions declared invalid in United States v.”
John A. Gebelein, Inc. v. Milbourne, 12 F. Supp. 105 (D. Maryland 1935). “Section 14 of the Act (7 USCA § 614) provides for the separability of its provisions in the event of the unconstitutionality of any particular feature thereof.”
United States v. David Buttrick Co., 15 F. Supp. 655 (D. Mass. 1936). “The original and the amendatory acts both provide that: “If any provision of this title [chapter] is declared unconstitutional, or the applicability thereof to any person, circumstance, or commodity is held invalid the validity of the remainder of this title [chapter] and the…”
B. F. Goodrich Co. v. United States, 48 F. Supp. 453 (S.D. Cal. 1940). “We are not impressed with this claim' — -it fails to evaluate the effect of Section 14 of Title I of the Act, 7 U. S.C.A. § 614, which is as follows: “If any provision of this title [chapter] is declared unconstitutional, or the applicability thereof to any person, circumstance,…”
Atl. Macaroni Co. v. Corwin, 14 F. Supp. 433 (E.D.N.Y 1936). “title 7, § 614, 7 U.S. C.A. § 614) provides that if any provision of the title is declared unconstitutional, the validity of the remainder shall not be affected thereby.”
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.