|
|
Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith, 370 U.S. 19 (1962)
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.
Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith, 370 U.S. 19 (1962)
Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co. No. 241 Argued March 21-22, 1962 Decided May 28, 1962 370 U.S. 19
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
A group of citrus fruit growers in California and Arizona organized local cooperative associations which joined together for the purpose of collectively marketing their fruit through the agency of an area-wide marketing cooperative and two processing cooperatives. Respondents sued petitioners, the area-wide cooperative and one of the processing cooperatives, for treble damages under § 4 of the Clayton Act, claiming that they had conspired with the other processing cooperative and two privately owned processing corporations to restrain and monopolize interstate trade in citrus fruit and by-products, and had actually monopolized the same, in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
Held: In view of the exemption from the antitrust laws accorded to agricultural cooperatives by § 6 of the Clayton Act and §1 of the Capper-Volstead Act, 7 U.S.C. § 291, a judgment based on a general verdict against petitioners, which may have rested on a finding of an unlawful conspiracy among the three cooperatives, must be reversed. Pp. 20-30.
(a) The instructions in this case left it open for the jury to base its verdict on a finding of a conspiracy among the marketing cooperative and the two processing cooperatives. Pp. 25-26.
(b) On the record in this case, it cannot be said that petitioners waived their objection to these instructions. Pp. 26-27.
(c) In view of the provisions of § 6 of the Clayton Act and § 1 of the Capper-Volstead Act, the three legal entities formed by these growers for the purpose of processing and marketing their agricultural products cooperatively cannot be considered independent parties for the purposes of the conspiracy provisions of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Pp. 27-29.
(d) Where one of several theories submitted to a jury is held erroneous, a general verdict must be reversed, as it may have rested on the erroneous theory. Pp. 29-30.
284 F. 2d 1 reversed and cause remanded.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith, 370 U.S. 19 (1962) in 370 U.S. 19 370 U.S. 20. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=6LWMGECEFK12NPW.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith, 370 U.S. 19 (1962), in 370 U.S. 19, page 370 U.S. 20. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=6LWMGECEFK12NPW.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith, 370 U.S. 19 (1962). cited in 1962, 370 U.S. 19, pp.370 U.S. 20. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=6LWMGECEFK12NPW.
|