§ 780.144. "As an incident to or in conjunction with" the farming operations.
204 words·~1 min read·
/us/cfr/t29/s§ 780.144·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
In order for practices other than actual farming operations to constitute "agriculture" within the meaning of section 3(f) of the Act, it is not enough that they be performed by a farmer or on a farm in connection with the farming operations conducted by such farmer or on such farm, as explained in §§ 780.129 through 780.143. They must also be performed "as an incident to or in conjunction with" these farming operations. The line between practices that are and those that are not performed "as an incident to or in conjunction with" such farming operations is not susceptible of precise definition.
Generally, a practice performed in connection with farming operations is within the statutory language only if it constitutes an established part of agriculture, is subordinate to the farming operations involved, and does not amount to an independent business. Industrial operations (Holtville Alfalfa Mills v. Wyatt, 230 F. 2d 398) and processes that are more akin to manufacturing than to agriculture (Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S. 254; Mitchell v. Budd, 350 U.S. 473) are not included.
This is also true when on-the-farm practices are performed for a farmer. As to when practices may be regarded as performed for a farmer, see § 780.143.
Connections3 off-index
3 references not yet in our index
- 230 F.2d 398
- 349 U.S. 254
- 350 U.S. 473
Citation graph
cites case law
§ 780.144
"As an incident to or in conjunction with" the farming operations.
Cites 3Cited by 0 across 0 sources