|
|
Case-Swayne Co., Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 389 U.S. 384 (1967)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Case-Swayne Co., Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 389 U.S. 384 (1967)
Case-Swayne Co., Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc. No. 66 Argued October 18-19, 1967 Decided December 18, 1967 389 U.S. 384
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner brought a treble damage Clayton Act suit for alleged violations by respondent of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The District Court granted a directed verdict for respondent. The Court of Appeals reversed as to the § 2 complaint, but affirmed the dismissal of the § 1 charge, holding that Sunkist qualified as a cooperative organization under the Capper-Volstead Act, and thus could not be held for an intra-organizational conspiracy to restrain trade. Section 1 of that Act privileges collective activity in processing and marketing for "persons engaged in the production of agricultural products as farmers, planters, ranchmen, dairymen, nut or fruit growers. . . ." Sunkist, which controls approximately 70% of the oranges grown in California and Arizona, and approximately 67% of the "product" oranges (used for processing), is composed of about 12,000 citrus growers, who are organized into 160 local associations, of which 80% are cooperative associations in which all members are growers. However, about 15% of the local associations, called "agency associations," are private corporations or partnerships owning and operating packing houses for profit. They have marketing contracts with growers to handle fruit for cost plus a fixed fee. All the local associations participate in the control and policy making of Sunkist.
Held: Respondent is not entitled to assert the Capper-Volstead Act as a defense to the suit based on § 1 of the Sherman Act, as it was not the intention of Congress to allow an organization with such nonproducer interests to avail itself of the exemption provided by that Act. Pp. 390-396.
369 F.2d 449, reversed and remanded.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Case-Swayne Co., Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 389 U.S. 384 (1967) in 389 U.S. 384 389 U.S. 385. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=1UN9L3X7F6CT9LQ.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Case-Swayne Co., Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 389 U.S. 384 (1967), in 389 U.S. 384, page 389 U.S. 385. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=1UN9L3X7F6CT9LQ.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Case-Swayne Co., Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 389 U.S. 384 (1967). cited in 1967, 389 U.S. 384, pp.389 U.S. 385. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=1UN9L3X7F6CT9LQ.
|