TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harrisburg Daily Market, Inc. v. Orville L. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture, and United States of America

HARRISBURG DAILY MARKET, INC., Petitioner, v. Orville L. FREEMAN, Secretary of Agriculture, and United States of America, Respondents

Harrisburg Daily Mkt., Inc. v. Freeman, 309 F.2d 646 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 4, 1962
Docket
No. 16772
Judges
Edgerton, Fahy, Burger
Citations
309 F.2d 646114 U.S. App. D.C. 261962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3988

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Harrisburg Daily Market, Inc., seeks to review under 64 Stat. 1129 (1950), 5 U.S.C.A. § 1031 et seq., a decision and order of the Secretary of Agriculture acting under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 46 Stat. 531 (1930), as amended, 70 Stat. 726 (1956), 7 U.S.C.A. § 499b(5). After proceedings which revealed repeated violations, the Secretary suspended for ten days the petitioner’s license as a dealer and broker in perishable agricultural commodities. The statute authorizes license suspension up to 90 days for violations involving misrepresentation of kind, quality or other specified conditions of any perishable agricultural commodity and the hearing examiner recommended a 21 day suspension. The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, required proof of fraudulent purpose as an element of the misrepresentation violations. 46 Stat. 533 (1930). To achieve stricter enforcement as the legislative history discloses, the act was amended in 1956 to eliminate the need to show the existence of fraudulent purpose. 70 Stat. 726 (1956), 7 U.S.C.A. § 499b(5). See H.R.Rep. No. 1196, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 3-4; S.Rep. No. 2507, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 4, 6, U.S. Code Cong. & Adm.News 1956, p. 3699. See also, Goodman v. Benson, 286 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1961); Eastern Produce Co. v. Benson, 278 F.2d 606 (3d Cir. 1960).

Our examination of the record satisfies us that there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the Secretary’s findings. We also hold that petitioner’s contention of procedural errors which render the suspended order invalid is without merit.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1976: 119762026peak 1976 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Goodman v. Benson, 286 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1961) 25
Eastern Produce Co. v. Ezra Taft Benson, Sec'y of Agric. of the United States, 278 F.2d 606 (3d Cir. 1960) 19

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list