Court Opinion

ID: 9546054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:24:13.847338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:55.923848
License: Public Domain

Finley, J.
(concurring) — I have signed the majority opinion, concurring in the views expressed and the result reached therein with the following observation:
I agree with the holding of this court in Inman v. Sandvig (1932), 170 Wash. 112, 15 P. (2d) 696, if, as I believe is proper, that decision is limited to a holding that, solely as a labeling device, the relegation of certain grades of apples to inconvenient and uneconomical types of containers is constitutionally unjustifiable. However, to the extent that the Inman case has any broader implications, conflicting with the views expressed icy the majority in the instant case, I believe the Inman case should be overruled.
Foster, J.
(concurring in the result) — While I concur in the court’s disposition of this appeal, in my view Inman v. Sandvig, 170 Wash. 112, 15 P. (2d) 696, was wrongly decided, cannot be distinguished and should be expressly overruled.