Mutual Orange Distributors v. Agricultural Prorate Commission
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs, lemon growers in and shippers from the State of California, seek to restrain permanently the enforcement of a prorate lemon marketing program prescribed under the authority of the California Agricultural Prorate Act, Chap. 754, p. 1969, Cal. Stats. 1933, as amended, St. 1935, pp. 1526, 2087, hereinafter called the Act. They claim that' the enforcement of the program would irreparably damage them and submit them to penalties should they violate it and would violate the commerce clause of the United States Constitution, article 1, § 8, cl. 3, and would…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- The Minnesota Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Champlin Rfg. Co. v. Corporation Commission of OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Simpson v. ShepardSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Lemke v. Farmers Grain Co. of EmbdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brown v. ParkerDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1941
- Brown v. ParkerDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1941