Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
icon
This articlerelies excessively onreferences toprimary sources. Please improve this article by addingsecondary or tertiary sources.
Find sources: "Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR
(November 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

1977 United States Supreme Court case
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
Argued February 22, 1977
Decided June 20, 1977
Full case nameHunt, Governor of North Carolina, et al. v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
Citations432U.S.333 (more)
97 S. Ct. 2434; 53L. Ed. 2d 383; 1977U.S. LEXIS 123
Case history
PriorWashington State Apple Advertising Comm'n v. Holshouser, 408F. Supp.857 (E.D.N.C. 1976)
Holding
North Carolina violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state apple growers.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinion
MajorityBurger, joined by unanimous court
Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I § 8 cl. 3 (Commerce Clause)

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977), was a case in which theSupreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down aNorth Carolina law prohibiting the sale of apples in closed containers marked with any apple grade other than theUnited States Department of Agriculture grade.[1] However, displaying the USDA grade was not required.Washington state, a major apple producer, used apple standards superior to those used by the USDA. The Court found that North Carolina's law violated theCommerce Clause because they discriminated against Washington state apple producers while working to the advantage of local North Carolina apple growers.

John R. Jordan, Jr., argued the cause for Hunt. With him on the brief wereRufus L. Edmisten,Attorney General of North Carolina, and Millard R. Rich, Jr., Deputy Attorney General.Slade Gorton,Attorney General of Washington, argued the cause for the Washington State Apple Advertising Commission. With him on the brief were Edward B. Mackie, Deputy Attorney General, and James Arneil, Special Assistant Attorney General.

The Supreme Court decision established the concept of association standing, which allows for an association (in this case, the Commission) that represents one or more parties that have demonstrable injury to bring the case to trial withstanding underArticle III.[1]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^https://www.reuters.com/legal/supreme-courts-thomas-questions-ability-groups-challenge-us-laws-2024-06-13/[bare URL]

External links

[edit]
Presentment Clause of Section VII
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Dormant Commerce Clause
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Othertrademark cases
Others
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Legal Tender Cases
Copyright Clause of Section VIII
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Copyright Act of 1976
Othercopyright cases
Otherpatent cases
Legal Tender Cases
Others
Compact Clause of Section X
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunt_v._Washington_State_Apple_Advertising_Commission&oldid=1330668407"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp