Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. OAKESDALE GRAIN GROWERS, Inc., Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1946-10-08
Citations: 157 F.2d 677
Docket Number: No. 11204
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. OAKESDALE GRAIN GROWERS, Inc., Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 157
Pages: 677–678

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. OAKESDALE GRAIN GROWERS, Inc., Appellee.
No. 11204.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 8, 1946.
Harvey Erickson, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Spokane, Wash., Thomas R. Winter, Sp. Asst, to Chief Counsel, B. I. R., of Seattle, Wash., Douglas W. McGregor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and A. F. Prescott, Norman S. Altman, and Sewall Key, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Donald L. Burcham, of Oakesdale, Wash., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, BONE, and ORR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORR, Circuit Judge.
This case was consolidated for trial with United States v. Colfax Grain Growers, 9 Cir., 157 F.2d 633, decided this day, and substantially the same facts and the same questions of law are involved here. The only difference between the two cases is that slightly different percentage of nonmember business was transacted by this appellant. during each of the three years involved. However, as in the Colfax Grain Growers case, supra, the non-member business of this appellant was at all times less than 50% of the total business done.
Therefore, the same reasons which led to our decision in the Colfax case, require an affirmance of the judgment in the instant case.
Affirmed.