Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
- Decided
- June 20, 1977
- Docket
- 76-63
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,065 timesSuperseded on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded on other grounds, superseded by statute, abrogated in part on other grounds, abrogated on other grounds (not yet verified) · Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Virginia State Water Control Board
What later courts said
- holding that the “object” was the right of apple growers and dealers to conduct their business affairs free from the interference of a state statute — RWN Development Group, LLC v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (2008)
- holding that, to establish associational standing, an organization must, among other things, demonstrate that its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right — Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and County of San Francisco (2010)
- holding that when plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation — Cole v. Long John Silver's Restaurants, Inc. (2005)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Me. Chief Justice Burgee delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1973, North Carolina enacted a statute which required, inter alia, all closed containers of apples sold, offered for sale, or shipped into the State to bear “no grade other than the applicable TJ. S. grade or standard.” N. C. Gen. Stat. § 106-189.1 (1973). In an action brought by the Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, a three-judge Federal District Court invalidated the statute insofar as it prohibited the display of Washington State apple grades on the ground that it unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce. [*336] The specific questions presented on appeal are (a) whether the Commission had standing to bring this action; (b) if so, whether it satisfied the jurisdictional-amount requirement of 28 U. S. C. § 1331; [1] and (c) whether the challenged North Carolina statute constitutes an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
(1) Washington State is the Nation's largest producer of apples, its crops accounting for approximately 30% of all apples grown domestically and nearly half of all apples shipped in closed containers in interstate commerce. As might be expected, the production and sale of apples on this scale is a multimillion dollar enterprise which plays a significant role in Washington's economy. Because of the importance of the apple industry to the State, its legislature has undertaken to protect and enhance the reputation of Washington apples by establishing a stringent, mandatory inspection program, administered by the State’s Department of Agriculture, which requires all apples shipped in interstate commerce to be tested under strict quality standards and graded accordingly. In all cases, the Washington State grades, which have gained substantial acceptance in the trade, are the equivalent of, or superior to, the comparable grades and standards adopted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Compliance with the Washington inspection scheme costs the State’s growers approximately $1 million each year.
Statutes cited
- 28 U.S.C. § 1331
- 28 U.S.C. § 2281
- 28 U.S.C. § 1343
Cite this
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.