Legal Opinion
Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Commission
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 27, 2003No. 00-16778PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge.
Several grape growers object to being compelled by state law to pay money for generic advertising of grapes. The Supreme Court has issued a decision that such a program for growers of nectarines, plums, and peaches did not violate the First Amendment, but a program for mushroom growers did. The only issue in this case is whether the principle distinguishing those two cases makes the grape growers more like the nectarine, plum, and peach growers, or more like the mushroom growers.
Facts.
In 1967, a California statute called the Ketchum Act established- the California…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. United Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Cal-Almond, Inc. v. Department of AgricultureCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Department of Agriculture v. Cal-Almond, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- California First Amendment Coalition v. CalderonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2008
- DEPARTMENT OF CITRUS v. Graves Bros. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004
- Delano Farms Company v. California Table Grape CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003