# Merrifield v. Lockyer

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · October 22, 2008 · 547 F.3d 978

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9569204

## Case

- **Full name:** Alan MERRIFIELD, an Individual; Urban Wildlife Management Inc., a California Corporation Individually as a Successor in Interest to Alan Merrifield Dba Urban Wildlife Management; California Nuisance Wildlife Control Operators Association, a California Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bill LOCKYER, Attorney General, Defendant, and Kelli Okuma, Registrar of the California Structural Pest Control Board; Gretchen A. Brigaman, Protest Officer of the California Department of Transportation; Jean Melton, Member of the California Structural Pest Control Board; Bill Morris, Member of the California Structural Pest Control Board; Michael Roth, Member of the California Structural Pest Control Board; Mustapha Sesay, Member of the California Structural Pest Control Board; Thurman, Member of the California Structural Pest Control Board; Kenneth L. Trongo, Member of the California Structural Pest Control Board, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 22, 2008
- **Citations:** 547 F.3d 978; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 22050; 2008 WL 4647174
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Hawkins
- **Judges:** O'Scannlain, Hawkins, Wardlaw
- **Cited by:** 66 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/9569204

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that state licensing requirement impeding state resident from practicing particular profession within the state does not implicate the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which in general “bar[s] . . . claims against ‘the power of the State governments over the rights of …
- holding a licensing regulation that discriminated between pest-controllers based upon the type of pest controlled failed "the relatively easy standard of rational basis review" because it "was designed to favor economically certain constituents at the expense of others similar…
- holding that a California statute excluding certain workers from an exemption from licensing requirements violated the Equal Protection Clause because the exclusion was not rationally related to a legitimate government interest
- finding that exemptions for nonpesticide pest controllers of certain vertebrates, but not others, violated equal protection even though broad licensing scheme was otherwise constitutional
- holding that state licensing requirement impeding state 20 resident from practicing particular profession within the state does not implicate the privileges or 21 immunities clause

## Opinion text

MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS,
Circuit
Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I certainly agree with the majority’s carefully thought out determination that California is entitled to require testing for pesticide knowledge of rodent and pest control operators who employ non-pesticide methods. Like the district court, however, I think it rationally follows from this that the state may determine which type of service providers should face a testing or licensing requirement and which should not. See, e.g., City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 , 96 S.Ct. 2513 , 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976) (legislatures may adopt regulations that “only partially ameliorate a perceived evil”). I would affirm across the board.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9569204. Public record. Not legal advice.