Legal Opinion

United States v. Stangland

District Court, N.D. Indiana

Decided January 13, 1956No. Civ. A. Nos. 838, 844PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SWYGERT, Chief Judge.

These are actions for the collection of wheat marketing quota penalties assessed by the Government under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq. It is claimed that these penalties are due because the defendants seeded for harvest in 1954 an acreage of wheat on their respective *542farms which was in excess of their wheat acreage allotments, and thereby-produced a farm marketing excess of wheat.

The pleadings in these eases are substantially identical. The Government has filed a motion to strike the First and Third Defenses of defendants’ answers, and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Wickard v. FilburnSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  2. Mulford v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  3. Rodgers v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
  4. Usher v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1944
  5. Lee v. RoseberryDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1950

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. United States v. Ethan Stangland, United States of America v. Max MunkCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1957
  2. Hawkins v. State Agriculture Stabilization & Conservation CommitteeDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1957
  3. United States v. ApplingDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1965
  4. United States v. JohnsonDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1957
  5. Sylvester v. DupreLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1976

2 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