# Swisher International, Inc. v. Schafer

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · December 3, 2008 · 550 F.3d 1046

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416166

## Case

- **Full name:** SWISHER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ed SCHAFER, Secretary of Agriculture, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** December 3, 2008
- **Citations:** 550 F.3d 1046; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24719; 2008 WL 5071350
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cox
- **Judges:** Anderson, Barkett, Cox
- **Cited by:** 59 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416166

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting a due process–based argument that a law “im- pose[d] retroactive liability that is disproportionate to [the peti- tioner’s] participation in the . . . program” because the law served legitimate legislative purposes and Congress chose rational means
- concluding that imposing an obligation to contribute to a fund that would buy out tobacco farmers did not constitute an unconstitutional taking
- declining to apply takings analysis to a FETRA challenge in part because five justices in Eastern Enterprises “expressed the view that the Takings Clause does not apply, where there is a mere general liability”

## Opinion text

COX, Circuit Judge, specially
concurring:
I concur in the judgment. I agree that the Act does not violate the Takings Clause. I also concur in sections III.B. and III.C. of the opinion, holding that Swisher’s due process and equal protection rights are not violated by the obligations the Act imposes on Swisher.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416166. Public record. Not legal advice.