Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hiller Cranberry Products, Inc. v. Koplovsky

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided January 4, 1999No. 98-1398Published

1DissentSelya, Circuit Judge

As the majority correctly notes, this appeal involves a difficult question of statutory construction that constitutes an issue of first impression in the federal courts. Because I read the statutory imperative differently than my colleagues, I respectfully dissent.

*11A core feature of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(l)-(4) (Supp. II 1996) (PACA), impresses a trust in favor of the supplier of a covered agricultural commodity. Under the statute and the associated regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture, "that trust is superi- or to the interests of a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Bailey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API