Summary

Portrait of Stanley Forman Reed Stanley Forman Reed Stark v. Wickard — Opinion of the Court

The District Courts of the United States (including the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia) in any district in which such handler is an inhabitant, or has his principal place of business, are hereby vested with jurisdiction in equity to review such ruling, provided a bill in equity for that purpose is filed within twenty days from the date of the entry of such ruling.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Stanley Forman Reed Stanley Forman Reed Stark v. Wickard — Opinion of the Court

If the court determines that such ruling is not in accordance with law, it shall remand such proceedings to the Secretary with directions either (1) to make such ruling as the court shall determine to be in accordance with law, or (2) to
take such further proceedings as, in its opinion, the law requires. The pendency of proceedings instituted pursuant to this subsection (15) shall not impede, hinder, or delay the United States or the Secretary of Agriculture from obtaining relief pursuant to section 8a (6) of this title.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Stanley Forman Reed Stanley Forman Reed Stark v. Wickard — Opinion of the Court

The petitioners place their reliance upon such rights as may be expressly or impliedly created by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and the Order issued thereunder.
Although this Court has previously reviewed the provisions of that statute at length and upheld its constitutionality, [3] some further reference to it is necessary to an understanding of the producer's interest in the funds dealt with by the Order. [4]
The immediate object of the Act is to fix minimum prices for the sale of milk by producers to handlers. It does not forbid sales at prices above the minimum.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature