holding that change in Washington's apple-grading law survived rational-basis review, even though the change "operate[d] to reduce the market value of" certain red and partial-red variety apples
How later courts described this case
- holding that change in Washington's apple-grading law survived rational-basis review, even though the change "operate[d] to reduce the market value of" certain red and partial-red variety apples
- “[T]he protection of the reputation of Washington apples and the betterment of the industry, and as a result the general welfare, is [a purpose] 5 This brochure can be found at ECF No. 28‐1 on the district court’s docket. No. 18‐1520 11 which could properly be served in the exercise of the police power.”
- "power of the legislature to enact all reasonable laws is unrestrained except where, either expressly or by fair inference, it is prohibited by the state and federal constitutions"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Finley, J.
(concurring) — I have signed the majority opinion, concurring in the views expressed and the result reached therein with the following observation:
I agree with the holding of this court in Inman v. Sandvig (1932), 170 Wash. 112 , 15 P. (2d) 696 , if, as I believe is proper, that decision is limited to a holding that, solely as a labeling device, the relegation of certain grades of apples to inconvenient and uneconomical types of containers is constitutionally unjustifiable. However, to the extent that the Inman case has any broader implications, conflicting with the views expressed icy the majority in the instant case, I believe the Inman case should be overruled.
Foster, J.
(concurring in the result) — While I concur in the court’s disposition of this appeal, in my view Inman v. Sandvig, 170 Wash. 112 , 15 P. (2d) 696 , was wrongly decided, cannot be distinguished and should be expressly overruled.