United States v. Stangland
District Court, N.D. Indiana
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
- Wickard v. FilburnSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Mulford v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Rodgers v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
- Usher v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1944
- Lee v. RoseberryDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1950
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. Ethan Stangland, United States of America v. Max MunkCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1957
- Hawkins v. State Agriculture Stabilization & Conservation CommitteeDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1957
- United States v. ApplingDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1965
- United States v. JohnsonDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1957
- Sylvester v. DupreLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1976
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.