Wainwright v. National Dairy Products Corp.
Citation | 304 F. Supp. 567 |
Decision Date | 30 September 1969 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 12278. |
Parties | Bill C. WAINWRIGHT, Ed S. Cook, Mrs. LeRoy Woodward, Dr. Asa G. Yancey, Fred M. Shell, T. Charles Allen, Robinson W. Schilling, Dr. Horace E. Tate and Mrs. Sara P. Mitchell, in their representative capacities as Members of the Atlanta Board of Education v. NATIONAL DAIRY PRODUCTS CORP.; Foremost Foods, Inc.; Pet Incorporated; Irvindale Dairies, Inc.; Atlanta Dairies Cooperative; R. L. Mathis Certified Dairy Co.; Better Maid Dairy Products, Inc.; Home Town Foods, Inc., d/b/a Foremost Dairies of the South and Foremost Farmbest; and Foremost-McKesson, Inc. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers, McClatchey & Regenstein, Latimer, Haddon & Stanfield, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.
King & Spalding, Atlanta, Ga., for National Dairy Products Corp.
Heyman & Sizemore, Atlanta, Ga., for Irvindale Dairies, Inc.
Webb, Parker & Ferguson, Paul Webb, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for Atlanta Dairies Co-op.
Fortson, Bentley & Griffin, Athens, Ga., for Better Maid Dairy Products, Inc.
Wallace, Wallace & Driebe, Jonesboro, Ga., for R. L. Mathis Certified Dairy Co.
Sanders, Hester, Holley, Ashmore & Boozer, Atlanta, Ga., for Pet, Inc.
Fisher & Phillips, Atlanta, Ga., for Home Town Foods, Inc. and Foremost-McKesson, Inc.
To facilitate the ultimate disposition of this multi-faceted antitrust action, the court asked each party to discuss the effect of the Georgia Milk Control Act on the plaintiff's case. The court will herein treat those suing as "the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta."
Plaintiff in its complaint urges that the defendants joined in a conspiracy, contract, or combination restraining trade, fixing prices, and dividing territory and customers, in violation of the Sherman Act with respect to it and other school systems in the State of Georgia. The defendants contend that the Georgia Milk Control Act, as amended in 1952, is an absolute bar to liability, or is at the very least persuasive evidence that no conspiracy in fact existed. The thrust of the defendants' argument is that milk prices were fixed for schools by the Georgia Milk Commission, established under the Milk Control Act, thereby immunizing them from federal antitrust violations.
The Milk Control Act, as originally passed in 1937, permitted the Milk Control Board to fix prices on milk sold within the state. The Act withstood several constitutional challenges, Bohannon v. Duncan, 185 Ga. 840, 196 S.E. 897 (1938); Gibbs v. Milk Control Board of Georgia, 185 Ga. 844, 196 S.E. 791 (1938); Holcombe v. Georgia Milk Producers Confederation, 188 Ga. 358, 3 S.E.2d 705 (1939), before it succumbed in Harris v. Duncan, 208 Ga. 561, 67 S.E.2d 692 (1951). The Supreme Court of Georgia, in a full bench decision, held the Act violative of state due process in its restriction on the freedom of contract. The Court found that since the milk industry was not, under its rigid definition, "affected with a public interest", price fixing was impermissible. Contra, see, Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 54 S.Ct. 505, 78 L.Ed. 940 (1934); Highland Farms Dairy v. Agnew, 300 U.S. 608, 57 S.Ct. 549, 81 L.Ed. 835 (1937).
In an effort to avoid the pitfalls cited in Harris v. Duncan, supra, the General Assembly of Georgia amended the Milk Control Act. The amended law attempted to assure a degree of price stability in the milk industry and at the same time preserve freedom of contract. Under the methods selected, the Georgia Milk Commission was authorized to establish "recommended prices" as "a guide to licensees buying or selling milk." As Georgia Code § 42-554 provides, in pertinent part:
"As a guide to licensees buying or selling milk, the commission shall determine, from its knowledge of the milk industry and investigations of economic and other conditions therein, what prices for milk handled or sold in each milk shed within which this law is applicable, adequately will protect the milk industry and insure a sufficient quantity of pure and wholesome milk to adults and minors, having special regard to the health and welfare of children, and be most in the public interest."
Under the Act the parties were subject to the prices recommended by the Commission, Georgia Code § 42-555.1,1 if they failed to voluntarily remove themselves from the recommended prices by entering into and properly filing contracts meeting certain requirements. Georgia Code § 42-551.
Defendants argue that the contractual requirements of § 42-551 were so onerous they amounted to no more than a charade for price-fixing, under § 42-554. Under § 42-551, each contract must contain, among other matters, the following, which defendants consider particularly burdensome:
Defendants urge that these requirements realistically precluded the use of contracts to avoid the Commission's recommendations. They note that each of them dealt with up to 200 or more producers, "each producer having herds of different breeds, all of which may be subject to variance from time to time." They further state that their sources of supply often depended upon producers outside the state, when normal sources in Georgia were exhausted, yet these sources would be unknown and therefore unspecified in the contract. Defendants state that they rarely knew whose milk was sold to whom, since the milk of various producers was commingled — often before it reached the distributor's plant. Additionally, they argue that they could not set out the quantity of milk sold to the instant plaintiff, as required by § 42-551(a) (ii), since their contract with the Atlanta Board of Education is on a "needs" basis. Defendants support their argument by citation to the opinion of Fulton County Superior Court Judge Etheridge in Ward v. Big Apple Super Markets, No. B-26538, May 5, 1967, and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmance of that case in Ward v. Big Apple Super Markets, 223 Ga. 756, 158 S.E.2d 396 (1967), holding the Milk Control Act unconstitutional. The Ward case involved the sale of milk by defendant below retail prices suggested by the Georgia Milk Commission. To escape the Commission's recommendation at the retail level — as opposed to the distribution level in the instant action — the defendant would have been required to comply with § 42-553:
"When a completed sale of a quantity of milk is made in a single transaction for cash upon delivery thereof the typical retail sale, in lieu of the execution and filing of an agreement in writing with respect to such sale as above prescribed, the seller shall obtain a written receipt signed by the buyer at the time of sale showing * * *. herein follow various facts about the sale."
Judge Etheridge found that § 42-553 did not provide a reasonable alternative to acceptance—at the retail level — of the Commission's recommended prices. As he put it:
In appealing Judge Etheridge's decision, the Milk Commission did not argue the question of reasonable alternatives under § 42-553, but attacked the Harris v. Duncan decision four-square, by arguing that milk was a product affected with a public interest. At pages 42-43 of their brief before the Georgia Supreme Court, the Commission stated that:
The Georgia Supreme Court, in its holding, stated that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State of N. M. v. American Petrofina, Inc.
...(E.D.Ark. 1949), 'The Sherman Act is not violated by acts authorized and regulated by state statute'. In Wainwright v. National Dairy Products Corp., 304 F.Supp. 567 (N. D.Ga. 1969), the Court found the existence of 'state action' by finding: 'In short, the state's hand ran throughout the s......
-
Downs v. Jacobs
...States Supreme Court. Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965); see Wainwright v. National Dairy Products Corp. (D.Ga.) 304 F.Supp. 567, 572--573 (1969). The language of the Becker case, upon which the tenant relies, must be read in context. There, the Superi......
-
Butzlaff v. Van Der Geest & Sons
...this interpretation. See Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965); Wainwright v. National Dairy Products Corp., 304 F.Supp. 567, 572-73 (N.D.Ga.1969). Seven circuit courts of appeal now follow the rule that, absent malice or bad faith, damages cannot be recov......
-
Shreve v. Western Coach Corp.
...of validity. No penalty may be visited upon citizens for doing likewise. * * *' 272 A.2d at 707. See also Wainwright v. National Dairy Products Corp., 304 F.Supp. 567 (N.D.Ga.1969); State v. Village of Garden City, 74 Idaho 513, 265 P.2d 328 (1953); Allen v. Holbrook, 103 Utah 319, 135 P.2d......