Document: 370 U.S. 19 82 S.Ct. 1130. 8 L.Ed.2d 305 SUNKIST GROWERS, INC., et al., Petitioners,v.WINCKLER & SMITH CITRUS PRODUCTS CO. al. No. 241. Argued March 21 and 22, 1962. Decided May 28, Rehearing Denied June 25, See 965, 1577. Herman F. Selvin, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners. William C. Dixon, Oakland, Holmes Baldridge, on the brief, respondents. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered opinion of Court. 1 This is a treble damage suit brought under § 4 Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U.S.C. 15, U.S.C.A. charging petitioners, Sunkist Growers, Incorporated, The Exchange Orange Products Company, with conspiracy to restrain monopolize interstate trade commerce in citrus fruits by-products actual monopolization thereof violation §§ 2 Sherman 26 209, 1, 2, as amended. petitioners are each agricultural cooperative organizations, being wholly owned subsidiary Sunkist. Petitioners contend case was submitted instructions permitting jury find an illegal among them Lemon processing association operated exclusively by number lemon-grower associations all which members Inc. They say that exemptions from antitrust laws granted 6 17, Capper-Volstead 42 388, 7 291, Sunkist, Orange, Lemon, made up same growers associations, cannot be charged themselves. trial court overruled this contention, others, returned verdict $500,000. Judgment amount attorney fees, less some minor offsets, entered. Court Appeals, accepting petitioners' view instructions, held exemption claimed did not apply here affirmed judgment liability but reversed damages. 9 Cir., 284 F.2d 1. We certiorari limited issue immunity interorganizational dealings three cooperatives provisions laws. 368 813, 56, 22. have concluded theory erroneous. Thus we reverse judgment. Inc., has at its base 12,000 California Arizona. These organized into local operate packing houses. turn grouped district exchanges, representatives these exchanges make governing board nonstock membership corporation. serves organization marketing their fresh fruit products1 through field, advertising, sales, traffic departments. All net revenues distributed members. 3 In 1915 several member undertook develop lemons order create market produce salable fruit. Because new, untried field entire participate. Rather separate cooperative—Exchange nonprofit stock corporation formed venture interested associations. Since time retained identity although it also Its function now primarily one processing, resultant products marketed owners department, jointly managed directors Orange. One year after similar oranges. organization, comprised until 1931. At decided facilities available purchasing operating subsidiary. 5 sum, individual involved belong grower association. Fruit sold packed belong. Most processed handled or associations.2 It then department Lemon. Competing California-Arizona area business selling canned orange juice were four independent processors, dependent upon supply by-product oranges.3 1951 two concerns, TreeSweet Company E. A. Silzle Corporation, had process-and-purchase contracts Under contract agreed process cost undetermined oranges provided purchase current price average alleged been $25.10 per ton.4 would stated netted $17.66 ton.5 third producer, Case-Swayne allegedly declined Sunkist's offer contract. Respondent Winckler Smith Citrus final processor, offered only list $40 $44 ton, depending content soluble solids, refused arrangements described above. Respondents controlled processors; they combined conspired TreeSweet, sale juices, particularly juice; fact monopolized such commerce; purpose effect elimination competitor juices. relied six specific acts furthered conspiracy, namely: (1) during 1951; (2) (3) establishment processors too high enable purchasers compete, i.e., $40—$44 ton price; (4) between (5) (6) refusal sign comparable respondent Winckler. After lengthy producing 4,000-page transcript, went necessarily complicated charge. As parties might participated gave instructions. One, given early charge, that: 'a parent wholly-owned can guilty combining conspiring together violate defendants accordingly combine conspire others Sections Act first second causes action, subject other concerning Section contained therein.' 10 Acts merely could lawfully monopoly dealt. Later references often mentioned e.g., 'If you either both (Sunkist here) eliminate competition plaintiff * *.' However, court's concluding well taken solely cooperatives: 11 'Unless find, therefore, preponderance evidence, them, Silzle, ELP (Exchange Products), more *. 12 '* Unless evidence co-conspirators (one Lemon), conspired, pursuant combination 13 'Those summary sort sum what must prove.' 14 And addendum consultation counsel instructed 'I am told I spoke about how occasion. charge conspired. 16 'However, matter fact, may nobody pick out decide than total conspired.' 17 On question before us, Appeals any objection least waived; event different entitled claim do unilaterally individually; common ownership prevent finding them. 18 believe quite plainly left open Lemon.6 outset found Thereafter advised 'Sunkist (and) ELP' sufficient basis against From entirely probable jury's based There no identified complaint throughout co-conspirator. fewer five instances refer 'co-conspirators' Silzle. summarization terms emphasized illegally co-conspirators. true Conjecture reasons fruitful. For clear never consideration those sole including summarization, allowed suggested respondents below waived acquiescence additional general But actions viewed context. Prior conferences discuss point objected themselves requested unlawful consistently ruled adversely point. delivered, prior objections preserved asked if objections. light assurance requests, added considered waiver. 20 squarely presented, then, whether Lemon—the legal entities growers—can purposes Act. conclude not. provides, inter alia, organizations instituted mutual help shall construed combinations conspiracies restraint laws.7 sets greater specificity: 'That persons engaged production farmers, planters, ranchmen, dairymen, nut act corporate otherwise, without capital stock, collectively preparing market, handling, foreign commerce, so engaged. Such agencies common; necessary agreements *.'8 22 doubt statutes ultimately join collective decisions officers conspiracies. language concerted efforts farmers products. legislative history reveals organization—then called Growers numbering 11,000 members—including suggestion Senator Capper type 'definite legalization' legislation.9 Although draw knowing approval tripartite growers, indicate size activities contemplated 23 Instead single cooperative, area-wide (Sunkist) purposes. When perform research joint basis, outlined later date Orange) acquired presently Lemon) still whom With due respect contrary opinions District Court, feel practical contemplation 'organization' 'association' even though formally entities. To hold otherwise impose grave consequences organizational distinctions de minimis meaning who banded within purview Acts. indication use corporations economic significance itself outsiders dealt organizations. That done divisions association, does our preclude 24 erroneous rested—a Lemon—it unnecessary us explore legality theories. Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 490, 493, 278, 280, 28 L.Ed. 822 (1884), '(I)ts generality prevents perceiving plea found. If, error committed, admission court, upheld Suffice decision way detracts earlier cases holding liable outside groups, United States Borden Co., 308 188, 60 182, 84 181 (1939), monopolization, Virginia Milk Producers Assn. States, 362 458, 80 847, 880 (1960). 25 Reversed remanded. FRANKFURTER took part case. 27 WHITE include concentrates, oil, pectin, pharmaceuticals, cattle feed. Some processors. companies juice. solids averaged 131.6 pounds ton. 120 argued permitted Our renders evaluation interpretation Sec. 6. labor human commodity article commerce. Nothing forbid existence operation labor, agricultural, horticulatural help, having conducted profit, carrying legitimate objects thereof; nor thereof, trade, laws.' certain requisites here. 61 Cong.Rec. 1036 (1921) (remarks Representative Black); 62 2052 (1922) (Senator Kellogg); 2061 Capper); 2277 Walsh).

Category: 7