Sunkist Growers, Inc v. Winckler Smith Citrus Products Co, No. 241
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Citation | 82 S.Ct. 56,368 U.S. 813,7 L.Ed.2d 22 |
| Docket Number | No. 241 |
| Parties | SUNKIST GROWERS, INC., et al., petitioners, v. WINCKLER & SMITH CITRUS PRODUCTS CO. et al |
| Decision Date | 09 October 1961 |
v.
WINCKLER & SMITH CITRUS PRODUCTS CO. et al.
Supreme Court of the United States
Ross C. Fisher and Herman F. Selvin, for petitioners.
William C. Dixon, for respondents.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition which reads as follows:
'1. Where a group of citrus fruit growers form a cooperative organization for the purpose of collectively processing and marketing their fruit, and carry out those functions through the agency of three co-operative agricultural associations, each of which is basically wholly owned and governed by those growers, and each of which is admittedly entitled to the exemption from the antitrust laws accorded to agricultural cooperatives by the Capper-Volstead Act (7 U.S.C.A., sec. 291)—is an unlawful conspiracy, combination or agreement established under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1, 2] upon proof only that these growers, through the agency of these three cooperatives, agreed among only themselves with respect to the extent of the division of the function of processing between them or with respect to the price they would charge in the open market for the fruit and the by-products thereof processed and marketed by them?'
The case is transferred to the summary calendar.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Case-Swayne Co. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., No. 20070.
...of the exemption pertained to its extent, not to whether or not it was applicable. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in granting certiorari, 368 U.S. 813, 82 S.Ct. 56, 7 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961), expressly limited its consideration to a single question, "Where a group of citrus fruit growers form a ......
-
Ditmars v. CIR, No. 216
...the ultimate decision of the issue presented in such cases may be, see Davis v. United States, 287 F.2d 168 (Ct.Cl.1961), cert. granted, 368 U.S. 813, 82 S.Ct. 48, 7 L.Ed.2d 21 (1961); Patrick v. United States, 288 F.2d 292 (4 Cir. 1961), cert. granted, 368 U.S. 817, 82 S.Ct. 57, 7 L.Ed.2d ......
-
United States v. Gilmore, No. 21
...in the administration of the federal income tax laws, we granted certiorari on the Government's petition. 368 U.S. 816, 82 S.Ct. 57, 7 L.Ed.2d 22. The case was first argued at the last Term and set for reargument at this one. 369 U.S. 835, 82 S.Ct. 864, 7 L.Ed.2d 841. At the time of the div......
-
United States v. Davis Davis v. United States, Nos. 190
...287 F.2d 168. We granted certiorari on a conflict in the Courts of Appeals and the Court of Claims on the taxability of such transfers.2 368 U.S. 813, 82 S.Ct. 60, 7 L.Ed.2d 21. We have decided that the taxpayer did have a taxable gain on the transfer and that the wife's attorney's fees wer......
-
Case-Swayne Co. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., No. 20070.
...of the exemption pertained to its extent, not to whether or not it was applicable. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in granting certiorari, 368 U.S. 813, 82 S.Ct. 56, 7 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961), expressly limited its consideration to a single question, "Where a group of citrus fruit growers form a ......
-
Ditmars v. CIR, No. 216
...the ultimate decision of the issue presented in such cases may be, see Davis v. United States, 287 F.2d 168 (Ct.Cl.1961), cert. granted, 368 U.S. 813, 82 S.Ct. 48, 7 L.Ed.2d 21 (1961); Patrick v. United States, 288 F.2d 292 (4 Cir. 1961), cert. granted, 368 U.S. 817, 82 S.Ct. 57, 7 L.Ed.2d ......
-
United States v. Gilmore, No. 21
...in the administration of the federal income tax laws, we granted certiorari on the Government's petition. 368 U.S. 816, 82 S.Ct. 57, 7 L.Ed.2d 22. The case was first argued at the last Term and set for reargument at this one. 369 U.S. 835, 82 S.Ct. 864, 7 L.Ed.2d 841. At the time of the div......
-
United States v. Davis Davis v. United States, Nos. 190
...287 F.2d 168. We granted certiorari on a conflict in the Courts of Appeals and the Court of Claims on the taxability of such transfers.2 368 U.S. 813, 82 S.Ct. 60, 7 L.Ed.2d 21. We have decided that the taxpayer did have a taxable gain on the transfer and that the wife's attorney's fees wer......