City of Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, No. 706
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | DOUGLAS |
| Citation | 86 L.Ed. 1355,62 S.Ct. 986,316 U.S. 168 |
| Parties | CITY OF CHICAGO et al. v. FIELDCREST DAIRIES, Inc |
| Docket Number | No. 706 |
| Decision Date | 27 April 1942 |
v.
FIELDCREST DAIRIES, Inc.
Page 169
Messrs. James A. Velde, Walter V. Schaefer, and Barnet Hodes, all of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.
Mr. Fred A. Gariepy, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Mr. Albert E. Hallett, Jr., of Chicago, Ill., for State of Illinois, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent, a Michigan corporation authorized to do business in Illinois, sells milk to wholesalers and retailers in various cities in the vicinity of Chicago. By an ordinance passed on January 4, 1935, the City of Chicago required that milk or milk products 'sold in quantities of less than one gallon shall be delivered in standard milk bottles.' § 3094. Respondent sought a permit from petitioner Board of Health to sell milk in 'Pure-Pak' paper containers in that city. That permit was not granted. Thereafter respondent filed suit against petitioners in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging, inter alia, that its 'single service,
Page 170
sterile, sanitary and non-absorbent' containers are 'standard milk bottles' within the meaning of the Chicago ordinance; that if the ordinance is construed as prohibiting respondent from using its paper containers the ordinance is unconstitutional and invalid under the federal and state constitutions; and that the refusal of the permit has and will cause respondent irreparable damage. The complaint prayed for a declaratory judgment that the ordinance be construed so as not to prohibit respondent from using its containers or, in the alternative, that the ordinance insofar as it does prevent such use is unconstitutional and invalid. Issue was joined. In May, 1939, the District Court referred the cause to a master who held extended hearings. In July, 1939, the so-called Illinois Milk Pasteurization Plant Law (L.1939, pp. 660—666, Rev.Stat.1941, c. 56 1/2, §§ 115—134) was enacted, containing certain provisions regulating the use of single service and paper containers (§ 15) and reserving to cities, villages and incorporated towns the power to regulate the distribution, etc. 'of pasteurized milk and pasteurized milk products, provided that such regulation not permit any person to violate any of the provisions of this Act.' § 19. On April 27, 1940, the master submitted his report finding that respondent's paper containers were not 'standard milk bottles' within the meaning of the ordinance and that the ordinance as construed was valid and constitutional. In October, 1940, the District Court, on exceptions to the master's report, held that respondent's containers were 'standard milk bottles' within the meaning of the ordinance. And it went on to hold that under the Milk Pasteurization Plant Law the city was without power to prohibit the use of such containers. It entered a decree in accordance with that finding and enjoined petitioners from interfering with respondent in the sale and delivery of milk and milk products in those con-
Page 171
tainers. 35 F.Supp. 451, 452. On appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, that court held that the District Court erred in holding that respondent's containers were 'standard milk bottles' within the meaning of the ordinance. But it concluded that the ordinance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romero v. Weakley, No. 1712-SD
...Commission of Texas v. Pullman Company, 1941, 312 U.S. 496, 61 S. Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971; City of Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, 1942, 316 U.S. 168, 169, 62 S.Ct. 986, 86 L.Ed. 1355; Spector Motor Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin, 1944, 323 U.S. 101, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101; Albertson v. Mill......
-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty, Civ. A. No. 2435
...of preliminary guesses regarding local law. Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., supra; City of Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, 316 U.S. 168, 62 S.Ct. 986, 86 L.Ed. 1355; In re Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 3 Cir., 136 F.2d 633. See also Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct.......
-
Bryan v. Austin, Civ. A. 5792.
...the state has interpreted the state constitutional provision, statute, or regulation in question. City of Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, 316 U.S. 168, 62 S. Ct. 986, 86 L.Ed. 1355; Spector Motor Service v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101; A. F. of L. v. Watson, supra; S......
-
Lang Transp. Corporation v. United States, Civil Action No. 6403.
...States v. Carolina Freight Carrier's Corp., 315 U.S. 475, 62 S.Ct. 722, 86 L.Ed. 971; Howard Hall Co. v. United States, 315 U.S. 495, 62 S.Ct. 986, 86 L.Ed. 986; Shawmut Transportation Co. v. United States, D.C., 49 F.Supp. 831; Inland Motor Freight v. United States, D.C., 60 F.Supp. 19 Giv......
-
Romero v. Weakley, No. 1712-SD
...Commission of Texas v. Pullman Company, 1941, 312 U.S. 496, 61 S. Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971; City of Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, 1942, 316 U.S. 168, 169, 62 S.Ct. 986, 86 L.Ed. 1355; Spector Motor Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin, 1944, 323 U.S. 101, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101; Albertson v. Mill......
-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty, Civ. A. No. 2435
...of preliminary guesses regarding local law. Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., supra; City of Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, 316 U.S. 168, 62 S.Ct. 986, 86 L.Ed. 1355; In re Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 3 Cir., 136 F.2d 633. See also Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct.......
-
Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corporation, No. 116
...1070, 87 L.Ed. 1407; Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 323—325, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424; City of Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, 316 U.S. 168, 62 S.Ct. 986, 86 L.Ed. 1355. 7. See Louisiana P. & L. Co. v. Thibodaux City, 360 U.S. 25, 29, 31, 79 S.Ct. 1070, 3 L.Ed.2d 1058; Allegheny C......
-
Bryan v. Austin, Civ. A. 5792.
...the state has interpreted the state constitutional provision, statute, or regulation in question. City of Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, 316 U.S. 168, 62 S. Ct. 986, 86 L.Ed. 1355; Spector Motor Service v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101; A. F. of L. v. Watson, supra; S......