Court Opinion

ID: 9422804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:04:39.436083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:39.630442
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice White,
dissenting.
I join the dissenting opinion of my Brother Goldberg. I add that the Court has failed to demonstrate how appel-lees’ sugar business qualifies as a “primary” business when it clears only 35 cents per 100 pounds of sugar over *455and above the cost of the sugar at Supreme, Louisiana. This is less than the normal costs of transportation from Supreme to San Antonio. No one without backhaul capacity could make a viable business out of selling Supreme sugar in the San Antonio market and appellees admit that they are “backhauling to make a profit.” I therefore cannot view the sugar business as a bona fide primary business to which a private transportation operation is only an incident. It would be more appropriate to say that this catch-as-catch-can sugar business is wholly incidental to an otherwise empty backhaul.