Appellee, a producer and packer of raisins in California, alleging that enforcement of the proration marketing agreement established under the California Agricultural Prorate Act would prevent him from fulfilling sales contracts and from purchasing for sale and selling raisins in interstate commerce, brought suit in the district court to enjoin enforcement of the program for marketing the 1940 raisin crop. The marketing program was challenged as in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the commerce clause of the United States Constitution and as in conflict with and superseded by the Federal Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The district court granted the injunction, holding that the effect of the marketing program was to place a controlled embargo on California raisin production and on the supply of raisins in interstate trade channels, thus constituting a direct and illegal interference with interstate commerce. Held, on appeal, the California prorate program for the 1940 raisin crop is not rendered invalid by the Sherman Act, the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, or the commerce clause of the federal Constitution.Parker v. Brown, (U. S. r943) 63 S. Ct. 307.
Malcolm M. Davisson,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-VALIDITY OF MARKETING PROGRAM ESTABLISHED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL PRORATE ACT,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol41/iss5/16