Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/373-u-s-132-606614858
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:15:24
Document Index: 131670793

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 792', '§ 792', '§ 8', '§ 2281', '§ 792', '§ 792', '§ 792', '§ 2', '§ 602']

373 U.S. 132 (1963), 45, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 606614858
373 U.S. 132 (1963), 45, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul
Citation: 373 U.S. 132, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 10 L.Ed.2d 248
Party Name: Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul
83 S.Ct. 1210, 10 L.Ed.2d 248
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc.
3. The findings of the District Court with respect to the effect of § 792 upon interstate commerce cannot be reviewed, because of substantial uncertainty as to the content of the record on which those findings were predicated. Therefore, the judgment is reversed in this respect, and the case is remanded to the District Court for a new trial of appellants' contentions that § 792 unreasonably burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce in Florida avocados. Pp. 152-156.
excluding the skin and seed."1 In contrast, federal marketing orders approved by the Secretary of Agriculture gauge the maturity of avocados grown n Florida by standards which attribute no significance to oil content.2 This case presents the question of the constitutionality of the California statute insofar as it may be applied to exclude from California markets certain Florida avocados which, although certified to be mature under the federal regulations, do not uniformly meet the California requirement of 8% of oil.
Protection of the Laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) that its application unreasonably burdened or discriminated against interstate marketing of Florida-grown avocados in violation of the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8. A three-judge District Court initially dismissed the complaint. 169 F.Supp. 774. On direct appeal, we held, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Jacobsen, 362 U.S. 73, that the suit was one for a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2281, and presented a justiciable controversy to be tried on the merits. After a trial, the three-judge court denied an injunction against the enforcement of § 792 on the ground that the proofs did not establish that its application to Florida-grown avocados violated any provision of the Federal Constitution. 197 F.Supp. 780. The District [83 S.Ct. 1214] Court held for several reasons that the Supremacy Clause did not operate to displace § 792: no actual conflict existed between the statute and the federal marketing orders; neither the Agricultural Act nor the marketing orders occupied the field to the exclusion of the state statute, and Congress had not ordained that a federal marketing order was to give a license to Florida producers to "market their avocados without further inspection by the states" after compliance with the federal maturity test. 197 F.Supp. at 787. Rather, the court observed, "[t]he Federal law does not cover the whole field of interstate shipment of avocados," but, by necessary implication, leaves the regulation of certain aspects of distribution to the States. Further, the District Court found no violation of the Equal Protection Clause, because the California statute was applicable on identical terms to Florida and California producers, and was reasonably designed to enforce a traditional and legitimate interest of the State of California in the protection of California consumers. The District Court concluded, finally, that § 792 did not unreasonably burden or discriminate against interstate commerce in out-of-state
avocados -- that the 8% oil content test served, in practice, only to keep off California grocers' shelves fruit which was unpalatable because prematurely picked. This holding rested, in part, on the conclusion that mature Florida fruit had not been shown to be incapable of attaining 8% oil content, since only a very small fraction of Florida avocados of certain varieties in fact failed to meet the California test.3
The California statute was enacted in 1925. Like the federal marketing regulations applicable to appellants, this statute sought to ensure the maturity of avocados reaching retail markets.4 The District Court found on sufficient evidence [83 S.Ct. 1215] that, before 1925, the marketing of immature avocados had created serious problems in California.5 An avocado, if picked prematurely, will not ripen properly, but will tend to decay or shrivel and become rubbery and unpalatable after purchase. Not only retail consumers, but even experienced growers, have difficulty in distinguishing mature avocados from the immature by physical characteristics alone.6 Thus, the District Court
to establish and maintain such minimum standards of quality and maturity . . . as will effectuate such orderly marketing of such agricultural commodities as will be in the public interest,
§ 2(3), 7 U.S.C. § 602(3). Whenever he finds that it would promote these declared policies, the...
Coniglio v. Bank of America, N.A., 020316 FED11, 14-15783