Appendix — Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.

Supreme Court brief1970

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

LIST OF CONTENTS

(Appears at the end)

—

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

Date

1968

May 27—1. File Complaint.

May 27—Issue Summons.

May 27—2. Enter and File Temporary Restraining Order te-

turnable on June 7, 1968 at 9 a.m. in Courtroom No. 1; WEC.

May 27—3. File Pitf’s. memorandum of points and authori-

ties.

May 27—cc of Temporary Restraining order issued for service.

May 28—Original of Judge Craig’s Notification and Certifi-

cate mailed to Judge Chambers; copies thereof mailed to James

M. Bush, Jacob Abramson and the Atty. General.

May 29—4. File Summons with Marshal’s return show serv-

ice with temporary restraining order made upon L. J. Pike.

June 3—5. File Pltf’s. application for leave to take deposition

of deft L. J. Pike; and Enter and File Order that pltf. is granted

leave of court to take said deposition within the period of 20 days.

June 3—4. File original Notification of Hearing to the Gov-

ernor of the State of Ariz. and the Attorney General, and mail

copies thereof to each of said officials by certified mail.

June 3—7. File Pitf’s. Notice of taking the deposition of deft.

L. J. Pike.

June 3—8. Enter and File Order by Judge Richard H. Cham-

bers designating the following to preside in this action: Hon.

Charles M. Merrill, U. S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit;

Hon. Walter E. Craig; and Hon. C. A. Muecke.

June 4—9. File Affidavit of James M. Bush of service of

notice of taking deposition of L. J. Pike upon the Attorney Gen-

eral.

June 6—10. File Application of Jacob Abramson for limited

admission, with consent by James M. Bush; and Enter and File

Order that Jacob Abramson is hereby permitted to appear and

participate in this action.

June 7—11. File Deposition of L. J. Pike, in 2 volumes.

June 7—12. File Deposition of David Gipe.

June 7—Minute Entry: This case called for hearing on ap-

plication for preliminary injunction pursuant to Temporary Re-

straining Order. Jacob Abramson, James Bush, Rex E. Lee and

Tom Miller present. Enter proceedings of hearing. It is ordered

that a preliminary injunction issue, Jacob Abramson to prepare

formal order within 10 days and if counsel for deft. has any ob-

jections, the same to be filed within 5 days thereafter. In the

event counsel are able to arrive at an agreed statement of facts,

it is ordered that pltf. file opening trial brief on law by August 1,

1968, that the response be filed by September 1, 1968 and that

the reply be filed by September 23, 1968. It is further ordered

that this case is set for trial in Courtroom No. 1, on October 7,

1968 at 9:30 a.m.; 3 judges.

June 18—13. Enter and File Order that plaintiff's applica-

tion for preliminary injunction is granted pending trial of this

matter, and further ordered that said preliminary injunction shall

remain in full force and effect until final hearing in this case and

further order of this Court, signed by three Judges on June 7,

1968.

June 18—Form AO 145 (notice to counsel) mailed to Evans

et al and the Atty. General.

June 24—14. File ANSV7ER of the defendant.

July 26—15. Enter and File Order that the time within

which plaintiff shall file its opening brief is continued to Sept. 1,

1968. The date to respond thereto is continued to Oct. 23, 1968.

Trial date is continued to Nov. 15, 1968 at 9:30 a.m.; 3 judges.

Sept. 23—16. File Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings dated

June 7, 1968.

——

‘ii

Oct. 30—17. File Defendants’ Motion for leave to file type-

written briefs; and Enter and File Order that the parties may file

typewritten briefs, reproduced by xeroxing or other reproducing

processing in the instant case. WEC

Nov. 5—18. File Defendants’ Opening Brief.

Nov. 5—19. File Parties’ Stipulation of Facts.

Nov. 5—z20. File Plaintiff's Opening Brief.

Nov. 14—21. File Plaintiff's Reply Brief.

Nov. 14—22. File Defendants’ Reply Brief.

Nov. 15—Minute entry: On for trial. James Bush and Jacob

Abramson pres. for Plaintiff. Hamilton McRae, Rex Lee, and

Thomas Miller pres. for Defendants. Case argued to court by

respective counsel. It is ordered that said matter is submitted

and taken under advisement.

1969

Jan. 29—23. File OPINION; and Enter and File Order that

the injunction heretofore issued restraining the defendant L. J.

Pike, his deputies etc. from threatening, ordering or attempting

or acting (a) to hinder, interfere with, impede, restrain or pre-

vent plaintiff from harvesting its crops of cantaloupe and trans-

porting said cantaloupe in bulk into the State of California;

(b) to seize and take possession of any crops harvested, loaded

or transported; (c) to take any action to forfeit bonds, or to

deny or revoke licenses of the plaintiff, or (d) to take any other

action penalizing, injuring or damaging plaintiff on account of

or because of such harvesting etc. in interstate commerce shall

be permanent; 3 judges.

Jan. 29—Copies of opinion and order given to 3 judges and

mailed to Evans et al, Jacob Abramson, Attorney General and

Jennings et al.

Feb. 4—24. File Defendants’ Motion for Rehearing and/or

Clarification. (Copies for 3 Judges).

Feb. 10—25. File Plaintiff's objection and Response to De-

fendants’ Motion for rehearing etc. (copies for 3 Judges)

Mar. 10—26. File OPINION and Enter and File Order that

the injunction heretofore issued restraining the defendant L. J.

Pike, his deputies etc. from in any manner attempting or acting

(a) to hinder, interfere with etc. or prevent plaintiff from har-

vesting its crops of cantaloupe grown by plaintiff in the State of

Arizona, in the vicinity of Parker, Arizona, and from transporting

said cantaloupe in bulk into the State of California; (b) to seize

and take possession of any crops harvested, loaded or transport-

ed; (c) to take any action to forfeit bonds, or to deny or revoke

licenses of the plaintiff because of harvesting, loading or transport-

ing such crops; or (d) to take any other action penalizing, in-

juring or damaging plaintiff on account of or because of such

harvesting, loading or transporting in intrestate commerce shall

be permanent; 3 judges.

Mar. 10—Copies of opinion and order mailed to Evans et al,

Jacob Abramson, Attorney General, Jennings et al and to Judge

Merrill, Judge Craig and Judge Muecke.

Apr. 1—27. File Defendants’ Motion for Rehearing.

Apr. 1—Copies of Motion for Judge Merrill, Judge Craig

and Judge Muecke.

Apr. 7—28. File Plaintiff's Objections to Motion for Re-

hearing.

May 1—29. Enter and File Order that defendants, having

filed a Motion for Rehearing, and plaintiffs having filed its ob-

jections thereto, and the Court being fully advised in the premises,

it is ordered that the Motion for Rehearing is denied; 3 judges.

May 1—Copies of order mailed to Abramson and Church;

Evans et al, the Attorney General and Jennings et al.

May 2—30. File Defendants’ Notice of Appeal to Supreme

Court of U.S., showing service on plaintiff's counsel.

May 12—31. File Defendants’ Resignation Re Contents of

Record on Appeal (letter to clerk).

May 16—32. File Plaintiff's Designation Re Contents of Rec.

ord on Appeal, with copy of the two letters designated attached.

June 18—33. File Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings —

Hearing held at Phoenix on November 15, 1968 (original and

free copy).

June 25—Record on appeal consisting of all original docu-

ments including deposition exhibits and certified copy of docket

entries, certified and transmitted to Supreme Court of the United

States, Washington, D.C., with request that original documents

be returned upon disposition of the appeal.

Aug. 28—34. File Stipulation Between Appellant and Ap-

pellee Regarding Errors in the Transcript of Proceedings.

Sept. 2—Supplemental record on appeal, consisting of Stipu-

lation filed 8-28-69 and clerk’s certificate, transmitted to Clerk

Supreme Court of United States.

Oct. 20—35. File Notice from Supreme Court of the United

States Re Jurisdiction.

APPENDIX

Supreme Court of the United States

OcTOBER TERM, 1969

No. 301

LOREN J. PIKE, AS SUPERVISOR OF INSPECTION,

ARIZONA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STANDARDIZATION SERVICE,

Appellant,

VeTSUS

BRUCE CHURCH, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,

Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

FILED JUNE 30, 1969

PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED OCTOBER 13, 1969

et oem

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

BRUCE CHURCH, INC. a

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action

No. 6702

vs.

L. J. PIKE, as Supervisor of

Inspection of the Arizona Fruit >

and Vegetable Standardization

Service; and DOE ONE, DOE TWO,

DOE THREE, DOE FOUR, DOE FIVE, COMPLAINT

DOE SIX, DOE SEVEN, DOE EIGHT,

DOE NINE and DOE TEN,

Defendants.

Plaintiff complains of the Defendants and each of them, and for

a cause of action alleges:

This action arises under the Commerce Clause, Article I, Sec-

tion 8, of the Constitution of the United States, and the Supremacy

Clause, Article VI, of the Constitution of the United States, as

hereinafter more fully appears. The value of the right of Plaintiff,

derived from Federal law, to engage in interstate transportation

of its own products, free from undue or unreasonable restraints

by the Defendants, exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the

sum of $10,000.00, and the amount in controversy herein exceeds

the sum of $10,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

II.

Plaintiff is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the

State of California and has its principal place of business in the

State of California.

——

The Defendant, L. J. PIKE ‘+ « citizen of the State of Arizona

and is the Supervisor of Inspection of the State of Arizona Fruit

and Vegetable Standardization Service.

The Defendants, DOE ONE, DOE TWO, DOE THREE,

DOE FOUR, DOE FIVE, DOE SIX, DOE SEVEN, DOE

EIGHT, DOE NINE and DOE TEN, and each of them, are

citizens of the State of Arizona.

That the true names of Defendants, DOE ONE, DOE TWO,

DOE THREE, DOE FOUR, DOE FIVE, DOE SIX, DOE

SEVEN, DOE EIGHT, DOE NINE and DOE TEN are unknown

to Plaintiff, and the said Defendants are sued herein in their

fictitious names. Plaintiff prays leave to substitute the true names

of said Defendants together with appropriate allegations when

their true names are ascertained.

Ill.

This suit is of a civil nature and is brought for the purpose

of obtaining a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 United

States Code, Section 2201, that the State of Arizona Fruit and

Vegetable Standardization laws, Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 3,

Chapter 3, Article 4, and in particular, but without limitation,

the following sections thereof:

Section 3-499, entitled “"abeling of containers; subcontainers;

mislabeling; controlling laws”;

Section 3-503, entitled “CANTALOUPES; definitions; seri-

ous damage; standard packs; crate markings; irregular sized

container; exceptions’;

Section 3-518, entitled “Exempt Transactions”;

Section 3-522, entitled “Violations; penalty”;

Section 3-482, entitled “Scope of article; containers”;

Section 3-486, entitled “Supervisor; inspection powers”;

Section 3-487, entitled “Supervisor; rule making”;

Section 3-488, entitled “Supervisor; investigation of transac-

tions and records”;

Section 3-492, entitled “Annual licensing of dealers; appli-

cation; fee; revocation for misrepresentations”;

ion 3-493, entitled “Bond of applicant; action for dam-

ages”;

Section 3-494, entitled “Denial or revocation of license”;

are unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, unlawful,

unconstitutional, void and unenforceable if, to the extent that,

and insofar as, said laws and any of the provisions thereof are

interpreted, applied, enforced or given effect so as to hinder,

interfere with, impede, prevent, restrain or prohibit Plaintiff

from harvesting its crops of cantaloupes grown by Plaintiff in

the State of Arizona in, around and about Parker, Arizona (where

Plaintiff does not have processing or packing facilities for

cantaloupe crops), placing the harvested cantaloupes loose in

trailers and transporting said crops so loaded on trailers by

truck across the state line of Arizona into the State of Cali-

fornia to Blythe (where Plaintiff does have processing and

packing facilities) for processing, packing and shipping in

standard containers and under standards and requirements the

same as or equivalent to those which would be applicable if these

crops were processed, packed, and shipped in the State of Arizona;

as well as for the purpose of obtaining an order restraining and

enjoining the Defendants, and each of them, from threatening,

attempting or acting to hinder, interfere with, impede, prevent,

restrain or prohibit the Plaintiff from harvesting, loading, and

transporting its cantaloupe crops in the manner and for the pur-

pose aforesaid, across the state line of Arizona into the State of

California.

IV.

Plaintiff is at the present time and has for many years past

been engaged in the business of growing, harvesting, transport-

ing, processing, packing, and shipping fruits and vegetables in

the states of Arizona and California for sale in markets

throughout the Nation. In the State of Arizona, Plaintiff has

carried on operations at various locations, including Parker,

Yuma, Harquahala Valley, Aguila, and Horne. In the State of

California, Plaintiff has carried on operations at various loca-

tions, including the Salinas Valley, Blythe, and the Imperial Val-

ley. Plaintiff has maintained processing and packing sheds, equip-

ment and facilities of various kinds required in connection with

its Operations at the above-mentioned locations, but Plaintiff

does not have at the present time at Parker, Arizona, processing

or packing facilities required for the handling of cantaloupe

crops or preparing them for shipment in interstate commerce.

¥e

On or about February 5, 1964, Plaintiff entered into a certain

Agricultural Lease with the Secretary of Interior of the United

States of America, as Lessor, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs,

the Colorado River Indian Agency and the Colorado River In-

dian Tribes, pursuant to which Plaintiff undertook to develop

approximately 6,400 acres of uncultivated, arid lands in the

Colorado River Indian Reservation, located at Parker, Arizona.

At the time the lease was signed, the land was arid wasteland

covered with mesquite. Under the lease, which is for a term of

25 years, Plaintiff, in addition to being required to pay rent

in excess of $1,500,000.00, undertook to improve and develop

the land by extensive clearing operations, leveling the land,

and constructing a complex, modern and efficient irrigation

system so that crops could be grown on the land. Continuously

since taking possession of the lands pursuant to the lease,

Plaintiff has been engaged in the planning, improving, develop-

ing and operating of the lands. In the process of improving

and developing the lands, Plaintiff has been required to carry

on extensive and costly operations by chain dragging the

land with tractors to clear off the mesquite, chiseling out the

roots and burning the mountains of mesquite; moving approxi-

mately six million (6,000,000) cubic yards of dirt to create a

uniform, level soil structure several feet thick in each of the 320

fields into which the farm was surveyed; constructing a five-foot

deep, concrete-lined canal approximately three miles in length to

carry Colorado River water to the fields; laying approximately

41 miles of poured-in-place concrete irrigation pipe throughout

the farm; and finishing the land by grading it, an operation which

involved the movement of approximately another one million

(1,000,000) cubic yards of dirt. In addition, Plaintiff has con-

structed on the land implement sheds and other service buildings.

Plaintiff has also built six two-bedroom houses and facilities for

22 house trailers for its employees. Plaintiff, in connection with

the development and operation of the farm has furnished em-

ployment to members of the Colorado River Indian Tribes as well

as others residing in the Parker area. Plaintiff's operations and

activities in this connection have involved the expenditure of

very considerable sums. Attached hereto and made a part hereof

as Exhibit “A” is a folder prepared by Plaintiff as part of its

recent dedication ceremonies, which contains a pictorial repre-

sentation of the work accomplished at Parker.

VI.

As a result of its work and efforts as aforesaid, Plaintiff has

succeeded in accomplishing a state of development originally

projected for five years within a period of about four years.

Approximately 6,300 acres of crops are now under cultivation,

including 501 acres of cantaloupes which will mature and be

teady for harvest on or about June 10, 1968. The period of

harvest will last about three weeks. Cantaloupes are a highly

perishable crop and must be harvested, processed and packed for

shipment promptly on reaching maturity or the crop will spoil and

become worthless.

VII.

Plaintiff has for many years been engaged in the business of

selling and shipping cantaloupes to buyers and receivers in vari-

ous states of the United States, and the cantaloupe crops grown

by the Plaintiff at Parker were grown for the purpose of supply-

ing the requirements of its customers and the ultimate consumer,

the general public, throughout the nation. Loss or curtailment

of Plaintiff's cantaloupe crop at Parker will not only cause

irreparable damage and injury to the Plaintiff in its relations

with its customers, but will also cause serious injury and damage

to the Plaintiff in its competitive position in the cantaloupe

markets of the nation and will result in substantially diminished

cantaloupe crops in interstate markets, with resultant higher con-

sumer prices.

Vil.

Although Plaintiff does not have at the present time, at its

farm at Parker, the processing and packing facilities needed for

the handling of cantaloupe crops and preparing them for ship-

ment to market in interstate commerce, Plaintiff does have such

facilities under lease at Blythe, California, a distance of approxi-

mately 31 miles from the farm at Parker. These facilities were

used by Plaintiff in the year 1967 for the processing and packing

of its cantaloupe crops grown at Parker in 1967, that being

the first year in which such crops had been grown by Plain-

tiff at the Parker farm. The crops were harvested, loaded loose

in trailers and transported to Blythe for processing and pack-

ing. This was done with the full knowledge and aquiescence

of the Defendants. The transportation of said cantaloupe crops,

in the manner described, across the state line of Arizona into

California was thus permitted, notwithstanding that the afore-

said Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization laws were

then also in effect. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on

such information and belief alleges, that for years past, vari-

ous other growers and shippers have also been permitted, with

the full knowledge and acquiescence of Defendants, to trans-

port cantaloupe crops, as well as other agricultural crops, in

—

bulk across the state line of Arizona into the State of California

for processing, packing and shipment in interstate commerce. In

reliance on this long administrative practice, and in reliance on

the application given by Defendants to the law during the year

1967 in respect of its cantaloupe crops grown at Parker, Plaintiff

undertook to plant and grow another cantaloupe crop to mature

in 1968, which it proposes to harvest, place in trailers and trans-

port to Blythe for processing and packing, as aforesaid. How-

ever, Defendant, L. J. PIKE, Supervisor of Inspection of the

State of Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Service

and the other Defendants have, by notice to Plaintiff and other

diverse acts, threatened to hinder, interfere with, impede, re-

strain, prevent and prohibit Plaintiff from loading and trans-

porting its cantaloupe crops in the manner and for the purpose

aforesaid, across the state line of Arizona into California; and

if not restrained and enjoined by this Court, the Defendants,

and each of them, will continue to threaten and will attempt

and will act to hinder, interfere with, impede, restrain, prevent

and prohibit the Plaintiff from loading and transporting its

cantaloupe crops in the manner and for the purpose aforesaid,

across the state line of Arizona into California.

IX.

Defendants, and each of them, seek to hinder, interfere with,

impede, restrain, prevent and prohibit such loading and trans-

portation by Plaintiff of its cantaloupe crops across the state

line of Arizona into California in the manner and for the pur-

pose aforesaid on the basis of the provisions of the Arizona

Fruit and Vegetable Standardization laws hereinabove referred

to in paragraph III. Such laws, among other provisions, state, in

Section 3-503, that “. . . All Cantaloupes shall be packed in

regular compact arrangement in closed standard containers

approved by the supervisor. . . .”, with certain stated exceptions

not applicable here; and such laws provide further certain penal

provisions, as in Section 3-522, that:

“B. It is also unlawful:

1. To pack, cause to be packed, sell, offer for sale, deliver for

shipment, load, ship or transport for shipment any fruits or

vegetables which do not conform to the requirements of this

article.

2. To prepare, deliver for shipment, load, ship, transport, offer

for sale or sell for shipment, a deceptive pack, load, arrange-

ment or display of fruits or vegetables, or to mislabel any

container or display of the fruits or vegetables.

C. A person violating a provision of this section, or a pro-

vision of this article other than provided in this section, is

guilty of a misdemeanor.”

and such laws further permit the seizure by Defendant,

L. J. PIKE, of fruits and vegetables packed, delivered for ship-

ment, loaded, shipped or being transported in violation of the

law; and provide further for the forfeiture of bonds and denial

or revocation of licenses for violations of the provisions of the law.

The State of California also has standardization laws which

apply to cantaloupe crops grown in that state and processed

and packed for shipment in that state. These are contained in

the California Agricultural Code, Sections 3, 42941, 43251,

45633, 45663, 45664, and other sections. Among the provisions

of such Code, are provisions (Sections 45633, 45663 and 45664)

which provide for packing of cantaloupes in standard containers

of the same sizes and descriptions as those prescribed in Arizona.

These standard containers are of uniform dimensions and speci-

fications adopted by the pertinent authorities as part of a plan

to achieve uniformity among growers and shippers in the Western

States generally. They are so used by growers, many of whom

carry out the same growing, packing and shipping operations in

the several states, such as Arizona and California, as does

-—

Plaintiff. The conditions and standards provided in the Stand-

ardization laws of Arizona and California are likewise the same

or very similar and are based on the same primary objectives

namely to avoid deceptive packs.

XI.

Accordingly, a case of actual controversy has arisen and

now exists between Plaintiff and the Defendants, and each of

them, in the following respects:

(a) Defendants, and each of them, contend that the Ari-

zona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization laws prohibit the

transportation of cantaloupes loose in trailers across the state

line; and that, accordingly, it would be unlawful and in violation

of the laws of the State of Arizona for Plaintiff to harvest its

cantaloupe crops at Parker, Arizona, place them loose in trailers,

and so transport them across the state line to Blythe, California,

for processing and packing at facilities of Plaintiff there, in

standard containers the same as those approved in Arizona pre-

paratory to shipment, and shipment, to markets in interstate

commerce.

(b) Plaintiff contends that:

(1) It has the right under the Constitution and laws of

the United States to harvest its crops of cantaloupes grown

at Parker, Arizona, place them loose in trailers, and so trans-

port them across the state line to its facilities at Blythe, California

for processing and packing in the manner and under the condi-

tions heretofore described.

(2) Any interpretation, application or enforcement of the

Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization laws in the man-

ner proposed and threatened by Defendants would constitute an

unreasonable and undue burden upon, and obstruction of, inter-

state commerce, in violation of the Commerce Clause, Article I,

Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States and would be

violative of Plaintiff's rights thereunder as aforesaid.

(3) The Congress of the United States by various enact.

ments, including the Agricultural Adjustment Act, of May 12,

1933, Chapter 25, Title 1, 48 Stat. 31 et. seq., Title 7 US.

Code, § 601, et. seq., and subsequent amendments thereof, the

Act of March 4, 1915, Chapter 158, 38 Stat. 1186, 1187, 15

USS. Code, § 234-236; the Act of August 31, 1916, Chapter 426,

39 Stat. 673-674, 15 U.S. Code, § 251-256; the Act of May 21,

1928, Chapter 664, 45 Stat. 685-687, 15 U.S. Code, § 257-257i:;

and other enactments, has entered and pre-empted the field in

respect of regulating the containerization requirements in con-

nection with packaging, transporting, shipping or handling of

agricultural products and commodities in interstate commerce,

and accordingly, the state laws and regulations sought to be en-

forced by the Defendants herein are in derogation of the rights of

the Plaintiff and are violative of the Supremacy Clause, Article

VI, of the Constitution of the United States.

XII.

Processing and packing facilities required for the handling

of Plaintiff's cantaloupe crops at Parker, Arizona, cannot be

constructed by June 10, when the cantaloupe: crops will reach

maturity, or in sufficient time before the cantaloupe crops must

be harvested. If Plaintiff is prevented by Defendants from trans-

porting its cantaloupe crops across the state line loose in trailers

for the purposes aforesaid, it would result in the total loss

of the crop, with resulting loss and damage to Plaintiff, in the

amount of approximately $300,000.00. Any such conduct by

Defendants would also cause injury and damage to Plaintiff in the

respects heretofore alleged and would, further, constitute and

cause serious interference by Defendant with Plaintiff’s con-

tractual relations with the Secretary of Interior of the United

States of America, as Lessor, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs,

the Colorado River Agency and the Colorado River Indian Tribe,

with the lessor of Plaintiff's processing and packing facilities

at Blythe, and with the interstate customers of Plaintiff, to whom

continuity of supply is of great importance. Plaintiff is informed

and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that

if the Defendants succeed in carrying out their threats, this will

seriously interfere with, and materially impair, the successful

development of the Indian lands administered by the United

States Department of the Interior in the Parker area, and tend

to discourage and frustrate private investment in the development

of these waste lands into productive farm lands.

XIII.

Further, in order to pack and ship its cantaloupe crops, it

is necessary that Plaintiff have a large supply of packing crates

and ice, which are inventoried at Blythe, California in advance,

so as to be ready for immediate use when the crops mature

and the harvest commences. Plaintiff has, of necessity, had to

place orders for such supplies and must make further com-

mitments as well as arranging for availability of the required

railroad cars for interstate shipments if the crop is not to be

lost for lack of these supplies and equipment. If Defendants

are not restrained and enjoined from carrying out their orders

and threats, Plaintiff will sustain heavy loss in respect of the

supplies already committed for and will be placed in great

jeopardy in respect of the supplies and equipment still to be

obtained.

XIV.

The products here involved are not being brought into the

State of Arizona from other states, but are to be taken out of

the State of Arizona for processing and packing, in like standard

containers and under like conditions. If and to the extent that the

Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization laws are interpreted

applied, given effect or enforced to prevent this, such laws un-

ee OTS

reasonably discriminate against out-of-state processors and packers

in favor of Arizona processors and packers and are unlawful and

void.

XV.

If and to the extent that the action threatened by Defend.

ants or the interpretation or effect being given by them to the

Arizona laws is sought to be based upon the police power of

the state, that is to say the protection of the public health,

safety, or welfare of the citizens of the State of Arizona, this

cannot serve as any legal or valid basis for the infringement

upon interstate commerce which it would effect, since the crops

so transported will not be returned for marketing or sale in the

State of Arizona until they have been processed and packed in

compliance with the Fruit and Vegetable Standardization laws of

the State of California, which have standardization requirements

like those of Arizona.

XVI.

If and to the extent that the action threatened by the Defend-

ants or the interpretation or effect sought to be given by them

to the Arizona laws has as their purpose and object to serve

the economic interests of Arizona growers, packers and shippers

to the detriment and disadvantage of those seeking to accomplish

their processing, packing and shipping in the State of California

under like standards and conditions, such action and such laws

constitute an unreasonable discrimination against and burden upon

those growers, processors and packers in interstate commerce and

are unlawful and void.

XVIL.

Plaintiff has exhausted its administrative remedies and has

no adequate remedy at law, and will be irreparably injured by

the wrongful and unlawful acts of the Defendants in threatening,

ordering, attempting, or acting to enforce the provisions of the

Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization laws against Plai-

tiff, so as to hinder, interfere with, impede, restrain, prohibit

and prevent Plaintiff from transporting its cantaloupe crops loose

in trailers across the state line of Arizona to Plaintiff's process-

ing and packing facilities at Blythe, California, unless the

Defendants, and each of them, are restrained and enjoined by

this Court from so threatening, ordering, attempting to act, or

acting.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands:

(1) That a declaratory judgment issue declaring that the

provisions of the Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization

laws are violative of Plaintiff's rights under the Constitution

and superior laws of the United States and are void and unen-

forceable against Plaintiff if, to the extent that, and insofar

as, said laws and any of the provisions thereof are interpreted,

applied, enforced or given effect so as to hinder, interfere with,

impede, prevent, restrain or prohibit Plaintiff from harvesting

its crops grown in Arizona, placing them loose, in bulk, in

trailers and transporting them across the state line of Arizona

into the State of California, to processing and packing facili-

ties of Plaintiff in California for processing and packing in

standard containers like those in use in Arizona, preparatory to

shipment and shipment to buyers or consignees in the various

states of the nation and foreign commerce.

(2) That a mandatory injunction issue, restraining and en-

joining the Defendants, and each of them, and their deputies,

agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons in

active concert and participation with them, from in any manner,

either directly or indirectly, threatening, ordering, attempting

or acting, (a) to hinder, interfere with, impede, restrain, pro-

hibit or prevent the Plaintiff from harvesting its crops of

cantaloupes, grown by Plaintiff in the State of Arizona, in,

around or about Parker, Arizona, and from placing the same loose

SOE TT

APE OP a ANNU tt nce

—

in trailers, in bulk, and transporting them across the state

line of Arizona into the State of California for processing and

packing in standard containers like those in use in Arizona,

preparatory to shipment and shipment to buyers or consignees in

the various states of the nation and foreign commerce; (b) to

seize and take possession of any crops so harvested, loaded or

transported; (c) to take any action to forfeit bonds or to deny

or revoke licenses of Plaintiff because of such harvesting, load-

ing or transportation of such crops; or (d) to take any other

action penalizing, injuring or damaging Plaintiff on account of or

because of such harvesting, loading or transporting.

(3) That, pending a hearing upon the merits of this case,

a preliminary injunction issue, restraining and enjoining the

Defendants, and each of them, and their deputies, agents, serv-

ants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons in active con-

cert and participation with them, from in any manner, either

directly or indirectly, threatening, ordering, attempting or act-

ing (a) to hinder, interfere with, impede, restrain, prohibit

or prevent the Plaintiff from harvesting its crop of cantaloupes,

grown by Plaintiff in the State of Arizona, in, around or about

Parker, Arizona, and from placing the same loose in trailers, in

bulk, and transporting them across the state line of Arizona into

the State of California for processing and packing in standard

containers like those in use in Arizona, preparatory to shipment

and shipment to buyers or consignees in the various states of the

nation and foreign commerce; (b) to seize and take possession of

any crops so harvested, loaded or transported; (c) to take any

action to forfeit bonds or to deny or revoke licenses of Plaintiff

because of such harvesting, loading or transportation of such

crops; or (d) to take any other action penalizing, injuring or

damaging Plaintiff on account or because of such harvesting,

loading or transporting.

(4) That pending hearing upon the preliminary injunction

and notice of the same as required by law, a temporary restrain-

ing order issue, without notice, restraining and enjoining the

Defendants, and each of them, and their deputies, agents, serv-

ants, employees and attorneys, and all persons in active concert

and participation with them, from in any manner, either

directly or indirectly, threatening, ordering, attempting or act-

ing (a) to hinder, interfere with, impede, restrain, prohibit or

prevent the Plaintiff from harvesting its crops of cantaloupes,

grown by Plaintiff in the State of Arizona, in, around or about

Parker, Arizona, and from placing the same loose in trailers and

transporting them across the state line of Arizona into the State

of California for processing and packing in standard containers

like those in use in Arizona, preparatory to shipment and ship-

ment to buyers or consignees in the various states of the nation

and foreign commerce; (b) to seize and take possession of any

crops so harvested, loaded or transported; (c) to take any action

to forfeit bonds or to deny or revoke licenses of Plaintiff because

of such harvesting, loading or transportation of such crops; or

(d) to take any other action penalizing, injuring or damaging

Plaintiff on account or because of such harvesting, loading or

transporting.

(5) That a three-judge district court be convened as required

by Section 2281, Title 28, United States Code, for the hearing

of this action and of the Plaintiff's demand for a preliminary

injunction; and that the Chief Judge of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit be notified pursuant to Section

—

2284, Title 28, United States Code, of the presentation of Plain-

tiff's application for injunction, in order that the necessary desig.

nation of judges for said Court may be made.

EVANS, KITCHEL & JENCKES

By James M. Bush

JAMES M. BUSH

363 North First Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85003

ABRAMSON & CHURCH

By Jacob Abramson

315 Crocker-Citizens Bank Bldg.

Salinas, California 93901

Attorneys for Bruce Church, Inc.

STATE OF ARIZONA )

County of Maricopa) weg

DAVID R. GIPE, being duly sworn, deposes and says that

he resides at 1150 Avenue “C”’, Yuma, County of Yuma, Arizona;

that he is the Assistant Secretary of BRUCE CHURCH, INC,

Plaintiff herein; and that he has read the foregoing complaint

and knows the contents thereof and that the same are true of his

own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be

alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters he

believes them to be true.

David R. Gipe

DAVID R. GIPE

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of May, 1968.

James M. Bush

Notary Public

My Commission Expires July 14, 1968.

“Exhibit A to the Complaint — The Story of the Bruce Church,

Inc., Parker, Arizona Farm” is omitted from the Appendix here,

but appears after page 50 infra.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ese 7

BRUCE CHURCH, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiff, Civil Action

ve No. 6702

L. J. PIKE, as Supervisor of Inspection

of the Arizona Fruit and Vegetable \

Standardization Service; and DOE ONE, TEMPORARY

DOE TWO, DOE THREE, DOE RESTRAINING

FOUR, DOE FIVE, DOE SIX, DOE ORDER

SEVEN, DOE EIGHT, DOE NINE and

DOE TEN,

Defendants.

This cause came on to be heard on Plaintiff's verified complaint

and it appearing to the court that the Defendants and each of

them are committing acts and are about to commit acts as set

forth in Plaintiff's complaint and will continue to do so unless

restrained by an order of this court, and that immediate and

irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to Plaintiff before

notice can be given and the Defendants and their attorney

or attorneys can be heard in opposition to the granting of a

temporary restraining order, in that Plaintiff is growing a crop

of cantaloupes on its farm at Parker, Arizona, and such crop

will be ready for harvesting on or about the 10th of June,

1968, and such cantaloupes are a highly perishable crop and

must be harvested, processed and packed for shipment promptly

on reaching maturity, and if this is not done the crop will

spoil and become worthless, and there are no facilities for the

processing and packing of the said crop at the Plaintiff's farm

LAL

LLL ENTE -

at Parker, Arizona, but such facilities are available to and are

under lease to Plaintiff at Blythe, California, and Defendants

have ordered and threatened to hinder, interfere with, impede,

restrain, prohibit or prevent the Plaintiff from harvesting its

crop of cantaloupes grown by Plaintiff in the State of Ari-

zona in, around or about Parker, Arizona, and from placing

the same loose, in bulk, in trailers and transporting them across

the State Line of Arizona into the State of California for

processing and packing in standard containers, like those in

use in Arizona, preparatory to shipment and shipment to buyers

or consignees in the various states of the nation and foreign

commerce, and by such action Defendants would prevent Plaintiff

from processing and packing such crops promptly upon their

reaching maturity, thereby resulting in the loss of such crops

due to spoilage;

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants L. J. PIKE, DOE ONE,

DOE TWO, DOE THREE, DOE FOUR, DOE FIVE, DOE

SIX, DOE SEVEN, DOE EIGHT, DOE NINE, AND DOE

TEN, and each of them and their deputies, agents, servants, em-

ployees, and attorneys, and all persons in active concert and par-

ticipation with them be and are hereby restrained from in any

manner, either directly or indirectly threatening, ordering, at-

tempting or acting (a) to hinder, interfere with, impede, restrain,

prohibit or prevent the Plaintiff from harvesting its crops of canta-

loupes, grown by Plaintiff in the State of Arizona, in, around or

about Parker, Arizona, and from placing the same loose in trailers

and transporting them across the state line of Arizona into the

State of California for processing and packing in standard con-

tainers like those in use in Arizona, preparatory to shipment and

shipment to buyers or consignees in the various states of the nation

and foreign commerce; (b) to seize and take possession of any

crops so harvested, loaded or transported; (c) to take any action to

forfeit bonds or to deny or revoke licenses of Plaintiff because

of such harvesting, loading or transportation of such crops; or

—

a ey Ay

(d) to take any other action penalizing, injuring or damaging

Plaintiff on account or because of such harvesting, loading or

transporting; and it is further

ORDERED that this order expire within 10 days after entry

unless within such time the order for good cause shown is

extended, or unless the Defendants consent that it may be ex-

tended for a longer period; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction

be set down for hearing on the 7th day of June, 1968, at

9 o'clock a.m., at Court Room #1, U.S. Court House, Phoenix,

and it is further

ORDERED that copies of this order and of Plaintiff's com-

plaint, together with proper summons issued by the Clerk of

this Court, be immediately served by the United States Marshall

upon the Defendants.

DONE IN OPEN COURT this 27th day of May, 1968 at

5:00 o'clock p.m.

Walter E. Craig

Judge of the United States

District Court

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

BRUCE CHURCH, INC., a California cor-

poration,

Plaintiff,

v. ‘

L, J. PIKE, as Supervisor of Inspection of the ANSWER

Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization

Service, et al.,

No. Civ-6702 Phx.

Defendants. ;

For its Answer, the defendant admits, denies and alleges as

follows:

The defendant admits that the amount in controversy in this

action exceeds the sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars,

in that the plaintiff would have suffered in excess of that amount

had it not been able to ship its 1968 crop. The defendant denies

that the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violates any

provision of the United States Constitution.

Admits that the plaintiff is a corporation incorporated under

the laws of the State of California and has its principal place

of business in the State of California. Admits that the defendant,

L. J. PIKE, is a citizen of the State of Arizona and is the

Supervisor of Inspection of the State of Arizona Fruit and

Vegetable Standardization Service.

Ill

Denies the allegations of Paragraph III of the Complaint.

Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of Paragraph IV of

the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity o. i.e allegations of Paragraph V of

the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of Paragraph VI of

the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

vil

Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of Paragraph VII

of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

Vull

Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of Paragraph VIII of

the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

Admits that the relevant provisions of Arizona’s Fruit and

Vegetable Standardization laws are as cited by Paragraph IX of

the Complaint. Admits that the defendant is charged with the

responsibility of enforcing, and intends to enforce, the provisions

of Arizona’s Fruit and Vegetable Standardization laws.

Admits that the cited sections of the California Agriculture

Code pertain to standardization, and that the State of California

has standardization laws which apply to cantaloupe crops grown

a os reer nee cme s neem et

in that State and processed and packed for shipment in that

State. Denies the balance of the allegations of Paragraph X

of the Complaint.

Admits that the defendant takes the position that the Ari-

zona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization laws prohibit the trans-

portation of cantaloupes loose in trailers across the State line

where they cannot be packed under the supervision of Arizona’s

inspectors. Denies that the plaintiff has a constitutional right

to transport its cantaloupes grown at Parker, Arizona, loose in

trailers across the State line for the purpose of having them

packed in the State of California. Denies that the Arizona Fruit

and Vegetable Standardization laws, insofar as they prohibit the

transportation of cantaloupes loose in trailers across state lines

for processing and packing in another state, constitute an un-

reasonable and undue burden upon, and an obstruction of, inter-

state commerce in violation of the “commerce clause,” Article 1,

Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States. Denies that

the Congress of the United States or any other Federal entity has

entered into and pre-empted the field in respect of regulating

the containerization requirements in connection with packaging,

transporting, shipping or handling of agricultural products and

commodities in interstate commerce.

XII

Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of Paragraph XII of

the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

XIII

Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of Paragraph XIII of

the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

—

XIV

Admits that the plaintiff proposes to take the products here

involved out of the State of Arizona for processing and pack-

ing. Denies the balance of the allegations of Paragraph XIV

of the Complaint.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph XV of the Complaint.

XVI

Denies the allegations of Paragraph XVI of the Complaint.

XVI

Denies the allegations of Paragraph XVII of the Complaint.

XVIII

Denies all allegations of the Complaint not hereinabove spe-

cifically admitted or denied.

WHEREFORE, defendant prays:

1. That the Court after hearing ORDER, ADJUDGE and

DECREE that the provisions of the Arizona Fruit and Vegetable

Standardization Laws are not violative of plaintiff's rights under

the Constitution and laws of the United States in preventing the

plaintiff from harvesting the crops grown in Arizona, placing

them loose, in bulk, in trailers and transporting them across the

State line of Arizona into the State of California for purposes of

processing them and packing them in California.

2. That after hearing, the Court dissolve the preliminary in-

junction against the defendant, entered hereinbefore.

3. That the Court award the defendant its costs incurred in

defending this action.

4. That the defendant have such other and further relief as

the Court deems just in the premises.

TREE I”

DARRELL F. SMITH

Attorney General of the State of

Arizona

By /s/ Thomas A. Miller

Thomas A. Miller

Special Assistant Attorney General

159 Capitol Building

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

JENNINGS, STROUSS, SALMON «

TRASK

By /s/ Riney B. Salmon

Riney B. Salmon

By /s/ Rex E. Lee

Special Counsel

111 W. Monroe

Phoenix, Arizona

STATE OF ARIZONA )

County of Maricopa 2

L. J. PIKE, being duly sworn, deposes and says that:

He is the Supervisor of Inspection of the Arizona Fruit and

Vegetable Standardization Service; and that he has read the

foregoing Answer and knows the contents thereof and that the

same are true of his own knowledge except as to the matters

therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to

those matters he believes them to be true.

/s/ L. J. Pike

L. J. Pike

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 24 day of

June, 1968.

COREE EEE EERE EERE EERE EEEEEEEEEEEEREREEEEEEEEEEEEE EEE

Copy of the foregoing Answer

mailed this ........ day of June, 1968, to:

James M. Bush

Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes

363 North First Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85003

and

Jacob Abramson

Abramson & Church

315 Crocker-Citizens Bank Building

Salinas, California 93901

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

BRUCE CHURCH, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

a No. Civ.-6702 Phx.

STIPULATION

L. J. PIKE, as Supervisor of Inspection of OF FACTS

the Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standard-

ization Service, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff herein, BRUCE CHURCH, INC., a California cor-

poration, and Defendant herein L. J. PIKE, by and through

their respective counsel in this action, do hereby make the

following Stipulation of Facts:

This action arises under the Commerce Clause, Article I,

Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States, and the

Supremacy Clause, Article VI, of the Constitution of the United

States. The value of the right of Plaintiff, derived from Federal

law, to engage in interstate transportation of its own prod-

ucts, free from any undue or unreasonable restraints by the

Defendants, exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of

$10,000.00, and the amount in controversy herein exceeds the

sum of $10,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. The Court

has jurisdiction over the subject matter and all necessary parties.

Plaintiff is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the

State of California and has its principal place of business in

the State of California.

—e

The Defendant L. J. PIKE is a citizen of the State of Ari-

zona and is the Supervisor of Inspection of the State of Ari-

zona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Service. In this capacity

he holds the chief executive office in this department of the

government of the State of Arizona. He has been a member of

the Service since 1936, becoming acting Supervisor in 1961

and Supervisor in 1964.

Ill

This suit is of a civil nature and is brought for the purposes of:

A. Obtaining a declaratory judgment, as more particularly set

forth in plaintiff's complaint, that the State of Arizona Fruit

and Vegetable Standardization laws, Arizona Revised Statutes,

Title 3, Chapter 3, Article 4, cited in the complaint are un-

reasonable, arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional and unenforce-

able if, co the extent that, and insofar as said laws are interpreted,

applied, enforced or given effect so as to hinder, prevent, restrain

or prohibit Plaintiff from harvesting its crops of cantaloupes,

grown by Plaintiff in the State of Arizona in, around and about

Parker, Arizona, placing the harvested cantaloupes loose in trailers

and transporting said crops so loaded on trailers by truck across the

state line of Arizona into the State of California to Blythe for

processing, packing and shipping in standard containers to

markets throughout the nation.

B. Obtaining an order restraining and enjoining the De-

fendants, and each of them, from threatening, attempting or

acting to hinder, interfere with, impede, prevent, restrain or

prohibit the Plaintiff from harvesting, loading, and transport-

ing its cantaloupe crops in the manner and for the purpose

aforesaid, across the state line of Arizona into the State of

California.

If called to testify, Mr. O. D. Miller of Phoenix, Arizona,

would testify as follows:

——e

A. That he has been active since the 1920s in local and

national affairs pertaining to the growing, packing, and ship-

ping of fruits and vegetables, having served, among other posi-

tions, as President of the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable

Association, a national organization, in 1945.

B. That he was a co-author of the Arizona Fruit and Vegetable

Standardization Act, enacted by the Arizona State Legislature

in 1929.

C. That prior to the enactment of the Fruit and Vegetable

Standardization Act in 1929, there was not as great a degree

of uniformity in quality, size, and type of pack of fruits and

vegetables shipped from the State of Arizona as there is today.

Poor quality produce shipped by one producer often had an

adverse impact upon the reputation of other shippers with-

in the State. Shippers desiring to maintain a reputation for

quality produce often encountered difficulties in maintaining such

a reputation because of the poor quality of produce shipped by

other packers within the State. Accordingly, the purposes for

the enactment of Arizona’s Fruit and Vegetable Standardization

Act were to promote and develop Arizona fruits and vegetables

in interstate and foreign commerce and to enhance the return

to the producers of fruits and vegetables within this State. The

Act has been successful in achieving its purposes.

Plaintiff is at the present time and has for many years past

been engaged in the business of growing, harvesting, trans-

porting, processing, packing, and shipping fruits and vegetables

at numerous farm locations in the states of Arizona and Cali-

fornia for sale in markets throughout the Nation. Almost all

its products are sold in interstate and foreign commerce. Com-

pany headquarters in the State of California are at Salinas,

and in the State of Arizona, at Yuma. The cropping program in

both states is similar; that is to say, the same kind of agri-

cultural commodities are grown in both states. A continuing and

adequate supply of produce is necessary for good customer re-

lations. The Company is diversified in agricultural field crops,

cotton and a number of affiliated crops, that tend to build the

soil and maintain the farm unit in good state of productivity.

If called to testify, officers of plaintiff would testify as follows:

A. The Plaintiff's operations are organized and planned so

as to provide a continuous supply of agricultural products to

its buyers throughout the country. By taking advantage of

growing seasons in different parts of the West, Bruce Church,

Inc., is able to supply produce of various types, including

cantaloupes, to its buyers over periods of several months, where-

as, if Operations were concentrated in one locality, each type

of crop would mature all at one time and would therefore

reach the market all at one time. By conducting its opera-

tions in several localities in different states, Bruce Church,

Inc., is able not only to produce greater quantities of agricul-

tural commodities, but it is also able to spread out the sup-

ply more evenly so as to avoid to some extent the ups and

downs of the produce market. This spreading-out of supplies

is to the advantage not only of Bruce Church, Inc., but also to

the buyers and to the ultimate consumers throughout the nation,

since price fluctuations at all levels are thereby reduced.

B. In order to conduct business-like operations, it is neces-

sary for Bruce Church, Inc. to plan and utilize facilities in

the most economical manner. The crops can only be grown where

the land and the climate are suitable and fit in with the over-

all marketing plans of Plaintiff. In order to achieve the above-

mentioned spreading-out of harvest times, the crops must be grown

in diverse areas. On the other hand, it is possible in some situa-

tions to locate packing and processing facilities in a central-

ized location so as to handle the crops from several surrounding

——

growing areas. If each crop grown at each separate location had

to be processed and packed at the growing site, it would not be

economically feasible to provide the large, well-equipped pack-

ing and processing facilities which are necessary to insure that

the produce reaching the market is of the highest quality. Not

only would the facilities of necessity be less refined, but also

Plaintiff would unnecessarily be subjected to the vagaries of the

migrant labor force which travels throughout the western states

following the crop harvests. If its crops were packed and pro-

cessed separately at each growing site, Plaintiff would be unable

to train and retain the highly skilled labor force that is neces-

sary in inspecting, handling, processing and packing its commodi-

ties. However, where two or more growing areas are close enough

to a central location so that the crops can be transported to

that central location for processing and packing, it then becomes

economically feasible to construct a large, well-equipped packing

and processing facility which can be used to process crops

maturing at different times in different areas. Not only would

this insure the availability of sophisticated equipment, but also

it would make it possible for plaintiff to train and retain

highly skilled labor over a long period of time in order to

handle properly the several crops and harvests which could be

transported to the central packing facility.

VII

In the State of Arizona, Plaintiff has carried on and is

catrying on operations at various locations, including, Parker,

Yuma, Harquahala Valley, Aguila, and Horne. In the State of

California, Plaintiff has carried on and is carrying on opera-

tions at various locations, including the Salinas Valley, San

Joaquin Valley, Imperial Valley ard Blythe. In each of these

locations, Plaintiff owns or leases lands which it farms. Pres-

ently under cultivation in all of the company’s locations are

25,000 to 30,000 acres. Approximately 15,000 are in the State

_—

of Arizona. Plaintiff has maintained 49d does _— maintain

processing and packing sheds, equipm®"* and facilities of various

kinds required in connection with i OPefations at the above-

mentioned locations, but Plaintiff dc®S Not have at the present

time at Parker, Arizona, processing of packing facilities required

for the handling of cantaloupe crePS Of preparing them for

shipment to market in interstate con'Merce.

The Company has carried on farfing activities in the State

of Arizona for many years and haS taken an active part in

research programs of the College of Agriculture and Extension

Service of the University of Arizona 2nd in the development of

fertility studies of numerous crops, including cantaloupes, lettuce,

citrus, and grapes. It is regarded in the industry as a company

maintaining high standards of quality and service. Defendant

himself has described Plaintiff as “one of the finest in the busi-

ness.” (Def. Depo. June 5, 1968, p. 53, 1. 12-13.)

On or about February 5, 1964, Plaintiff entered into a

certain Agricultural Lease with the Secretary of Interior of

the United States of America, as Lessor, the Commissioner of

Indian Affairs, the Colorado River Indian Agency and the Colo-

rado River Indian Tribes, pursuant to which Plaintiff undertook

to develop approximately 6,400 acres of uncultivated, arid lands

in the Colorado River Indian Reservation, located at Parker,

Arizona. At the time the lease was signed, the land was arid

wasteland covered with mesquite. Under the lease, which is for

a term of 25 years, Plaintiff, in addition to being required to

pay rent in excess of $1,500,000.00, undertook to improve and

develop the land by extensive clearing operations, leveling the

land, and constructing a complex, modern and efficient irriga-

tion system so that crops could be grown on the land. Continu-

ously since taking possession of the lands pursuant to the lease,

Plaintiff has been engaged in the planning, improving, developing

and operating of the lands. In the process of improving and de-

veloping the lands, Plaintiff has been required to carry on ex-

tensive and costly operations by chain dragging the land with

tractors to clear off the mesquite, chiseling out the roots and

burning the mountains of mesquite; moving approximately six

million (6,000,000) cubic yards of dirt to create a uniform level

soil structure several feet thick in each of the 320 fields into

which the farm was surveyed; constructing a five-foot deep, con-

crete-lined canal approximately three miles in length to carry

Colorado River water to the fields; laying approximately 41 miles

of poured-in-place concrete irrigation pipe throughout the farm;

and finishing the land by grading it, an operation which involved

the movement of approximately another one million (1,000,000)

cubic yards of dirt. In addition, Plaintiff has constructed on

the land implement sheds and other service buildings. Plaintiff

has also built six two-bedroom houses and facilities for 22

house trailers for its employees. Plaintiff, in connection with

the development and operation of the farm has furnished employ-

ment to members of the Colorado River Indian Tribes as well as

others residing in the Parker area. Plaintiff's operations and

activities in this connection have involved and will continue

to involve the expenditure of very considerable sums, amounting

to between 3 and 314 million dollars. Attached hereto and

made a part hereof as Exhibit “A” is a folder prepared by Plain-

tiff as part of its recent dedication ceremonies, which contains

a pictorial representation of the work accomplished at Parker.

As a result of its work and efforts as aforesaid, Plaintiff

has succeeded in accomplishing a state of development originally

projected for five years within a period of about four years.

Approximately 6,300 acres of crops are under cultivation this

year. These include about 2,200 acres of barley, 1,700 acres

of sorghum, 800 acres of cotton, 80 acres of onions, 40 acres

of Bermuda seed, about 1,000 acres of alfalfa. Also included

are 501 acres of cantaloupes which matured this year on or

about June 10, 1968, and were harvested by Plaintiff follow-

ing the issuance of the temporary restraining order and pre-

liminary injunction in this proceeding. The cantaloupe crop,

which comes once a year, matures about June 10. The planting

takes place usually in January, sometimes in February, and re-

quires three to four months for growth. The period of harvest

generally lasts about three weeks. Cantaloupes are a highly

perishable crop and must be harvested, processed and packed for

shipment promptly on reaching maturity or the crops will spoil

and become worthless. All but a very small portion of the

Plaintiff's cantaloupe crops are marketed outside the State of

Arizona and move in interstate commerce. The gross sales value

of the Parker crop for 1968 is approximately $700,000.00.

Last year Plaintiff's crop amounted to 400 acres, and involved

100,355 crates with a gross sales price of $598,728.26. The

cantaloupes grown by Plaintiff at Parker as well as elsewhere

are of exceptional high quality. Other districts in which Plaintiff

grows cantaloupe crops are the Yuma District in Arizona and

the Central Valley of California, the Huron District and this

year at Mendota, California.

Plaintiff has for many ,cars been engaged in the business

of selling and shipping cantaloupes to buyers and receivers in

various states of the United States and Canada, to jobbers,

wholesalers, chain stores, and the cantaloupe crops grown by

the Plaintiff at Parker are grown for the purpose of supplying

the requirements of its customers and the ultimate consumer,

the general public, throughout the nation. If called to testi-

fy, officers of Plaintiff and other witnesses would testify that

loss of Plaintiff's cantaloupe crop at Parker would not only

cause irreparable damage and injury to the Plaintiff in its re-

lations with its customers, but would also cause serious in-

jury and damage to Plaintiff in its competitive position in the

cantaloupe markets of the nation and woulld result in substantially

diminished cantaloupe crops in interstate markets.

Plaintiff does not have at the presenit time, at its farm at

Parker, the processing and packing facilities needed for the

handling of cantaloupe crops and preparing them for shipment to

market in interstate commerce. To establish such facilities suit-

able to serve the Parker ranch would require bringing in rail

siding for about 20 miles. It is estimated that the detailed

engineering involved, cost of procuring land, putting on a rail

siding and the work involved in the comstruction of a facility

or shed building sufficient in size to hamdle the crop and ob-

taining and installing needed equipment, including bins, dumps,

sorting tables, conveyors, presses, lidding machines, crate racks,

electric motors, waxers, bushers, loading bins, cull storage bins,

cull conveyors, skids, would run in the neighborhood of

$200,000.00. The better and more elaborate the facilities are, the

better the job which can be done in the processing and packing

of the product for market. It would not be feasible to build a shed

which would be served by truck rather than by rail. If the track-

age, land easements for drainage, siding and equipment could be

obtained, the planning and construction would require a number

of months, and it would take about six months for the physical

job of constructing the needed facilities.

XII

There are two other cantaloupe growers and shippers at the

present time in the Parker District, namely, the Garin Com-

pany and the Tri-Produce Company. The Garin Company and

Tri-Produce also grow or have grown cantaloupes in certain

districts in California. In addition, Westside Growers & Shippers

formerly grew cantaloupes in the Parker area. The acreages

which these companies have had devoted to cantaloupes in the

Parker area during the years in w! .ch they have grown canta-

loupes in that area are as follows:

The Garin Company

1963 550 Acres

1964 550 Acres

1965 496 Acres

1966 520 Acres

1967 510 Acres

1968 580 Acres

Westside Growers & Shippers

1964 550 Acres

1965 550 Acres

1966 740 Acres

Tri-Produce Company

1967 645 Acres

1968 650 Acres

During each of the above designated years, the Garin Company,

Westside Growers & Shippers and the Tri-Produce Company

packed their cantaloupes in sheds owned or controlled by them in

or near Parker, Arizona, on the Arizona side of the State line.

The Garin Company and Tri-Produce, which continue to grow

cantaloupes in the Parker District, have acquired excellent repu-

tations as cantaloupe growers and shippers and both pack

their cantaloupes according to standards comparable to those of

the plaintiff. The two sheds which service the cantaloupe crops

of the Tri-Produce Company and the Garin Company are the only

packing sheds suitable for handling cantaloupe crops of this

size in the Parker area on the Arizona side of the State line.

Their facilities, however, are not available to Plaintiff. The

produce business is a highly competitive business and cantaloupe

growers are in direct competition with one another. Apart from

this, a cantaloupe packing shed is in full operation at capacity

during cantaloupe harvest season, from early morning until late

after dark, and the grower requires exclusive use of his facilities

during such periods. Therefore, it is not feasible to share facili-

ties with another company, or have another company do your

packing.

Among the different shippers of cantaloupes, there exist

differences of opinion as to how best to pack cantaloupes in

order to make them most attractive and in order most effec-

tively to enhance their marketability. Shippers who pack within

the State of Arizona or the State of California are subject to

the requirements of the inspection service of the State within

which they pack; within the bounds of those requirements, how-

ever, some shippers go to greater lengths than other shippers in,

for example, sorting for color, uniformity of size, and similar

factors.

In addition to physical defects, such as softness, sponginess,

rot, etc., some individual shippers may give greater emphasis

than others to considerations such as appearance and ship-

ping qualities, which, though they are factors separate and apart

from physical defects, affect the marketability of the produce.

The manner in which an individual shipper packs and the

manner in which he sorts for color, uniformity of size, and

similar factors, has a substantial effect upon the long-run repu-

tation that his product attains with his buyers; this long-run

reputation that the shipper’s produce acquires is a matter of

prime concern for a shipper such as the Bruce Church Company.

This is one of the reasons why the Bruce Church Company would

not even want its cantaloupes to be packed by any other company.

The actual packing of the cantaloupes, e.g., the placing of

the individual melons in the containers, except in the case

of shippers operating in more than one district, such as Plain-

tiff, Garin Company and Tri-Produce, is not usually done by

_—

full time employees of the shipper, but by transient workmen

who customarily work for one shipper during the time that that

shipper’s crop is being harvested and shipped, and then move on

and pack at another shed which serves a crop maturing later in

the season. In a given season most of these packers work both

in Arizona and in California.

Although there are no packing facilities available to Plain-

tiff at Parker, Plaintiff does have such facilities under lease

at Blythe, California, a distance of approximately 31 miles from

the farm at Parker. It is approximately 26 miles from Parker

to the State line, and then 5 miles into California to Blythe.

In Plaintiff's experience, the facilities at Blythe afford a cen-

tralized facility for the most practical, economical and efficient

handling of the company’s cantaloupe crops in the general area,

including the Parker District. If called to testify, officers of

Plaintiff would testify that if Plaintiff were required to con-

struct facilities at Parker, its costs would be materially increased

and that a centralized facility makes it possible to have better

quality control as well as more economical processing, with

the end result being a better product at a lower cost to the

consumer. The facilities at Blythe were used by Plaintiff in

the year 1966 for the processing and packing of its canta-

loupe crops grown at Parker in 1966, that being the first year

in which such crops had been grown by Plaintiff at the Parker

farm, and also again last year, 1967, for the packing of 467

acres of Plaintiff's cantaloupes. Such facilities would not be ade-

quate to handle the cantaloupe production from 1,000 acres,

in the event Plaintiff should so increase its production acre-

age, which it hopes to do. In the event Plaintiff should so

increase its cantaloupe production acreage, packing shed facili-

ties sufficient to handle a cantaloupe crop of this magnitude

would then be constructed at a location that would be in

Plaintiff's economic best interest, considering its total farm-

ing operations. The Plaintiff has given some thought and study

to this matter, but has not yet determined whether it would be

in the economic best interest of the Plaintiff to locate these

facilities at Parker, Blythe or elsewhere. The facilities, if and

when built, would be a centralized facility prepared to handle

not only cantaloupes but other agricultural products grown by

Plaintiff in the general area.

XIII

The cantaloupe crops grown by Plaintiff in 1966 and 1967

in the Parker district and in 1968 after the issuance of the

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in this

matter, were harvested, loaded loose in trailers and transported

to Blythe for processing and packing using generally the same

type of equipment and processing and packing methods a- are

used in Arizona. There they underwent the same basic inspec-

tion procedure described below, including a rigid inspection

by Plaintiff's own personnel as well, were carefully sorted,

processed and packed in standard containers, approved in Arizona

as well as California, and shipped in interstate commerce. The

standard containers used by Plaintiff are the same in whatever

district or state, or locations, it operates. There are three sizes

of cartons, each being of fixed dimensions, each being assigned

a tariff number which is the same in both states, and each being

officially approved for use by both the States of California and

Arizona. The crate most commonly used is in evidence as

Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 in the depositions.

Inspectors of the Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardiza-

tion Service are in the fields where the harvest is in process,

they inspect the cantaloupes and each day issue pickle worm

inspection certificates. This is the same pickle worm inspection

which is made with respect to all cantaloupes picked in Arizona

and shipped to California and similarly certificated. The inspection

certificates given Plaintiff in this manner were given for delivery

by Piaintiff to the State of California inspector, stationed on

the Arizona side of the border, at the time the cantaloupes

were taken across the state line into California. This has been

the daily procedure during each of the past two years. The trans-

portation of said cantaloupe crops, in the manner described,

across the state line of Arizona into California, has been accom-

plished with the knowledge of and without objection or complaint

by Defendant, his agents or employees.

If called to testify, officers of Plaintiff wouid testify that

this procedure and practice of inspecting, transporting to Blythe

and packing and processing there by Plaintiff was carried out

as to grade, quality and pack in the same manner and with

the same high standard as its cantaloupe production handled in

Arizona at Yuma.

The cantaloupes are brought into the packing shed in trailers.

They are then sorted and placed in packing bins. The State In-

spectors circulate in and out of the shed throughout the day,

on an indeterminate schedule. They will appear unannounced

several times during the day, each day, and will inspect the

cantaloupes in the bins for defects. If the cantaloupes are

running of good quality on a given day, the inspectors will appear

with lesser frequency. If the run is of marginal quality, that is

with a larger amount of defects, the inspectors appear with greater

frequency. If they like what they see, the inspectors will turn

and leave, if they do not like what they see, or if the produce

is close to tolerance, they will take a “hard” look and inspect

very closely. They may even go into the car or truck which has

been loaded and visually inspect the cantaloupes in the crates.

If they find a condition to exist which goes beyond the tolerance,

they will “red tag” the load — even after it has been packed and

made ready for shipment. In such case the load must be recondi-

tioned to meet minimum standards or dumped.

The inspectors check not only for defects, but also for sugar

content, particularly if the sugar content is running low in the

—

area at the time. They will cut the cantaloupes, squeeze, take

samples and test for total sugar. If the cantaloupes do not

make grade the inspectors will hold up the operation and give

the shipper an opportunity to get rid of the deficient cantaloupes

and bring the produce up to tolerance. If the condition is question-

able, the inspectors may go out and check the produce already in

the crates and may even “red tag” them.

These same basic procedural steps are generally followed both

in Arizona and in California.

In years past, various other growers and shippers, with the

knowledge of and without objection or complaint by Defendant,

his agents or employees, have transported cantaloupe crops, as

well as other agricultural crops, in bulk across the state line

of Arizona into the State of California for processing, packing

and shipment in interstate commerce. Attached hereto and made

a part hereof as Exhibit “B” is a document showing produce grown

in the Parker District of Arizona in past years and taken across the

state line in bulk to Blythe, California, for processing and pack-

ing there. The list was prepared by Mr. Pike on the basis of sta-

tistics appearing in the Service’s official annual reports for the

years in question. The list was identified as Defendant’s Exhibit

No. 1 in Mr. Pike’s deposition on file herein and the annual re-

ports were identified as Defendant's Exhibits 5 through 18,

respectively, also on file herein. The list shows only watermelon,

honeydew and cantaloupe crops, by acreages, although lettuce also

was a commodity similarly handled. In the years covered (1953-

1967) several different growers and shippers harvested their

Parker crops and transported them across the State line into Blythe

for packing and shipment in interstate commerce, among them

S. L. Eaton Farms, Martin Produce Co., Independent, Garin Com-

pany, Noroian Farms, Nish Noroian Farms. The existence of this

practice prior to the time Plaintiff commenced operations at

Parker, was noted, and reported without objection, in the official

~—_

reports of the Defendant’s department for the years in question.

(Def. Ex. 5-18). Although not reflected on the list, the practice

commenced earlier as appears from a letter dated September 27,

1968, from the Land Operations Officer, Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Parker, Arizona, which letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”

and by reference made a part hereof. Over the years, mixed

melons, carrots, citrus, onions, barley, milo and alfalfa have

been moved in bulk from the Parker Valley or other Arizona

Districts into California through Blythe.

In January of 1968, Plaintiff undertook to plant and grow

another cantaloupe crop to mature about June 10, 1968, which

it proposed to harvest, place in trailers and transport in bulk

to Blythe for processing, packing and shipment in accordance

with the practice of prior years.

On March 22, 1968, by written notice to Plaintiff, Defendant

informed Plaintiff he would not permit Plaintiff to transport

its cantaloupe crops across the state line of Arizona into Cali-

fornia for processing and packing there as above described. At

the time notice was given, Defendant was aware that Plaintiff

did not have processing or packing facilities in Parker. Defend-

ant did thereafter, pursuant to his notice, prevent and prohibit

such loading and transportation by Plaintiff of its cantaloupe

crops across the state line of Arizona into California in the

manner and for the purpose aforesaid.

XIV

Although the quality of cantaloupes grown in Arizona varies

from year to year and from district to district according to

growing conditions existing at the time, cantaloupes grown at

Parker are considered ordinarily to be of higher quality than

those grown in other districts in Arizona.

A certain segment of produce buyers known as “ground

Buyers” usually inspect the individual] crop and place their orders

according to district, that is, specifying a particular district from

which the order is to be filled. Other buyers, known in the in-

dustry as “the wire trade,” usually do not specify the district

from which the order is to be filled.

The State of California also has standardization laws which

apply to cantaloupe crops grown in that state and processed

and packed for shipment in that state. These are contained in

the California Agricultural Code, Sections 3, 42941, 43251,

45633, 45663, 45664 and other sections. Among the provisions

of such Code are provisions (Sections 45633, 45663 and 45664)

which provide for packing of cantaloupes in standard containers

of the same sizes and descriptions as those prescribed in Arizona.

These standard containers are of uniform dimensions and speci-

fications adopted by the pertinent authorities as part of a plan

to achieve uniformity among growers and shippers in the Western

States generally. They are so used by growers, many of whom

carry out the same growing, packing and shipping operations in

the several states, such as Arizona and California, as does Plaintiff.

Such growers supply the same customers with the same agricul-

tural products, packed in the same uniform containers, from both

the States of Arizona and California. The equipment used by such

growers in their processing and packing operations in both States

is the same, geared to handling the same uniform containers.

There exists generally a close liaison between the California pro-

duce industry and the Arizona produce industry. Some growers

and shippers are Arizona residents operating in Arizona and Cali-

fornia and vice versa. For many years, growers in the Bard Valley

of California, including growers of cantaloupes, Plaintiff among

them, have been transporting their products across the state line

of California into Yuma on the Arizona side of the Colorado

River for processing, packing and shipment to interstate markets,

in the same manner as has been done from Parker to Blythe.

This has been known to Defendant. The conditions and stand-

ards provided by the Standardization Laws of Arizona and Cali-

fornia are likewise based on the same primary objectives, namely,

to avoid deceptive packs.

XVI

Accordingly, a case or actual controversy has arisen and now

exists berween Plaintiff and the Defendant, and each of them,

in the following respects:

A. Defendant contends that:

(1) The regulatory provisions of the Arizona Fruit and Vege-

table Standardization Act constitute a valid and permissible exer-

cise of the police power reserved to the State of Arizona and do

not contravene any provisions of the United States Constitution.

(2) Congress has not enacted legislation which has pre-empted

the field of regulating the packaging and handling of cantaloupes

prior to their shipment in interstate commerce.

(3) The packing of fruits and vegetables occurs at a stage

prior to the time that such fruits and vegetables have entered

the stream of interstate commerce; the regulation of the packing

of fruits and vegetables may therefore be undertaken by a state

free from commerce clause strictures.

B. Plaintiff contends that:

(1)It has a right under the Constitution and laws of the

United States to harvest its crops of cantaloupes grown at Parker,

Arizona, place them loose in trailers, and so transport them

across the state line to its facilities at Blythe, California, for

processing and packing in the manner and under the conditions

heretofore described;

(2) Any interpretation, application or enforcement of the

Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization laws in the manner

proposed and threatened by Defendant would constitute an un-

reasonable and undue burden upon, and obstruction of, inter-

state commerce, in violation of the Commerce Clause, Article I,

—

Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States and would be

violative of Plaintiff's rights thereunder as aforesaid;

(3) The Congress of the United States by various enactments,

including the Agricultural Adjustment Act, of May 12, 1933,

Chapter 25, Title 1, 48 Stat. 31 et. seq., Title 7 U.S. Code § 601,

et seq., and subsequent amendments thereof, the Act of August

14, 1946, Chapter 966, Title II, Sections 202-208, 60 Star.

1087, 7 U.S. Code Section 1621-1627; the Act of March 4, 1915,

Chapter 158, 38 Stat. 1186, 1187, 15 U.S. Code § 234-236,

the Act of August 31, 1916, Chapter 426, 39 Stat. 673-674, 15

U.S. Code, § 251-256; the Act of May 21, 1968, Chapter 664,

45 Stat. 685-687, 15 U.S. Code, § 257-257i; and other enact-

ments has entered and pre-empted the field in respect of regulating

the containerization requirements in connection with packaging,

transporting, shipping or handling of agricultural products and

commodities in interstate commerce, and accordingly, the state

laws and regulations sought to be enforced by the Defendant

herein are in derogation of the rights of the Plaintiff and are

violative of the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, of the Constitution

of the United States;

(4) If and to the extent that the Arizona Fruit and Vegetable

Standardization Laws are interpreted, applied, given effect or

enforced to prevent Plaintiff, such laws unreasonably discriminate

against out-of-state processors and packers in favor of Arizona

processors and packers and are unlawful and void;

(5) If and to the extent that the action threatened by Defend-

ant or the interpretation or effect being given by him to the

Arizona laws is sought to be based upon the police power of

the state, that is to say the protection of the public health, safety,

or welfare of the citizens of the State of Arizona, this cannot

serve as any legal or valid basis for the infringement upon inter-

state commerce which it would effect since the crops so trans-

ported will not be returned for marketing or sale in the State

of Arizona until they have been ptocessed and packed in com-

pliance with the Fruit and Vegetable Standardization laws of the

State of California, which have standardization requirements like

those of Arizona; and

(6) If and to the extent that the action threatened by the

Defendants or the interpretation Gr effect sought to be given

by them to the Arizona laws have as their purpose and object

to serve the economic interests Of Arizona growers, packers and

shippers to the detriment and disaqyantage of those seeking to

accomplish their processing, packin and shipping in the State

of California under like standards 244 conditions. such action

and such laws constitute an unreas,able iiiistaaiie against

and burden upon those growers, pfG-essors and packers in inter-

state commerce and are unlawful ang yoid.

(7) The acts threatened by Defendant would constitute an

unlawful interference with Plaintiff, seniineiial teen wie:

the contract clause of the Constitut;, Article I, Section 10.

XVII

Processing and packing facilitie, required for the handling

of Plaintiff's 1968 cantaloupe crop. 4. parker Rite coll

not have been constructed by June 19 EE tls dis dcintey

loupe crops of this year would h ave reached maturity, or in

sufficient time before the cantaloup. crops had to be harvested.

If Plaintiff had been prevented by Defendant from transporting

. fr = . .

its cantaloupe crops across the Sth te line loose in trailers for

the purposes aforesaid in 1968, I -acatih ile a

loss in gross sales this year alone in

th f —

$700,000.00. If called to testify, @ ¢ Dire ty

ffi f Plaintiff Id

testify that any such conduct by Del... Pa hp thee one re

large undetermined amounts

cause Plaintiff loss and damage in

and would cause serious interferenc.

: ‘ ce with Plaintiff's contractual

relations with the Secretary of Ir. ,

; -nterior of the United States

of America, as lessor, the Commis . ; :

ssioner of Indian Affairs, the

—

Colorado River Agency, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the

lessor of Plaintiff's processing and packing facilities at Blythe,

and with the interstate customers of Plaintiff, to whom continuity

of supply is of great importance; and that such conduct will

also seriously interfere with and materially impair the successful

development of the Indian lands administered by the United

States Department of the Interior in the Parker area, and

tend to discourage and frustrate private investment in the devel-

opment of these waste lands into productive farm lands.

If called to testify, officers of Plaintiff would testify that

the standing of a grower in the trade is directly affected by

his ability to afford a customer a continuing supply of a given

product and any reduction in Plaintiff's ability to carry its

Parker products to market would seriously affect its customer

relations. The cantaloupe crops grown by Plaintiff at Parker

represent a substantial part of the cantaloupe supplies coming

out of the Parker area — approximately one-third, and if this

crop is lost to Plaintiff, not only will its competitive position

in the industry be damaged, but the reduced quantities of

cantaloupes going to market will result in higher prices to the

buyer and consumer public and, of course, Plaintiff's competi-

tors will benefit at Plaintiff's expense from increased prices for

their own products because of the diminished supplies going

to market. Defendant's Exhibits No. 2 and 3 to his deposition

of June 5, 1968 are lists showing the various cantaloupe growers

having current acreages in other districts of Arizona.

The lease which Plaintiff has on the facilities at Blythe

calls for a minimum rental guarantee of $6,000 per year. If

the crop is packed at Blythe, the minimum will be considerably

exceeded at the 10¢ per packed crate rate provided. If the

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction herein had

not issued and Plaintiff had not been able to transport the 1968

crop to Blythe for packing, Plaintiff would have suffered the loss

of the guaranteed amount and, of course, considerable loss would

have been suffered by Plaintiff's Lessor who made the lease with-

out knowing that Defendant would seek to prevent the crop being

packed at Blythe. The present lease was entered into by Plaintiff

and its lessor on November 17, 1966, after the 1966 melon

harvest to cover the 1967 and 1968 Blythe-Parker melon seasons.

Although such lease expires in November following the 1968

melon season, officers of Plaintiff, if called to testify, would testify

that it has been and presently is their plan to renew said lease

and continue the use of the processing and packing facilities in

Blythe unless prevented from doing so by Defendant.

XVIII

Further, in order to pack and ship its cantaloupe crops this

year, it is necessary that Plaintiff have a large supply of pack-

ing crates and ice, which are inventoried at Blythe, California

in advance, so as to be ready for immediate use when the

crops mature and the harvest commences. Plaintiff must, of neces-

sity, place orders for such supplies and must make further com-

mitments as well as arranging for availability of the required

railroad cars for interstate shipments if the crop is not to be

lost for lack of these supplies and equipment. If Defendant is

not restrained and enjoined from carrying out his orders and

threats, Plaintiff will sustain heavy loss in respect of the sup-

plies already committed for and will be placed in great jeopardy

in respect of the supplies and equipment still to be obtained.

XIX

The products here involved are not being brought into the

State of Arizona from other states, but are to be taken out of the

State of Arizona for processing and packing.

There are no administrative remedies available to Plaintiff;

Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and will be irreparably

injured, and this is a proper case for equitable relief and the

relief prayed for, if the acts of the Defendant in threatening,

ordering, attempting, or acting to enforce the provisons of the

Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization laws against Plain-

tiff, so as to hinder, interfere with, impede, restrain, prohibit and

prevent Plaintiff from transporting its cantaloupe crops loose

in trailers across the state line of Arizona to Plaintiff's processing

and packing facilities at Blythe, California, are wrongful or

unlawful.

The issue here presented is a present and continuing one

and will not be rendered moot by the expiration of the 1968

harvest season. Plaintiff's crop program and crop plans call

for continued cantaloupe crops in the Parker district in the

years to come, much or all of which Plaintiff proposes to harvest

and transport across the state line imto California for proces-

sing and packing as herein described. Likewise, the Defendant's

prohibition thereof, as heretofore stated, is a present and con-

tinuing one, and unless restrained and enjoined by this Court,

Defendant will seek to prevent such practice by Plaintiff in

the future.

XXI

The Complaint herein was filed on May 27, 1968. The

Answer was filed on June 24, 1968. On May 27, 1968 a Tem-

porary Restraining Order, as prayed for, was made and issued by

the Honorable Walter E. Craig, United States District Judge,

and the said Order was duly served on the Defendant on May

28, 1968.

Thereafter, a three-judge court, consisting of the Honorable

Charles M. Merrill, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit, the Honorable Walter E. Craig, Judge, United

States District Court for the District of Arizona, and the Honor-

able Carl A. Muecke, Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Arizona, was convened to hear the matter of

the Preliminary Injunction. Hearing thereon was had in Phoenix

on June 7, 1968. A Preliminary Injunction as prayed for was

made and issued on June 7, 1968, by a unanimous court.

After the filing of the Complaint and prior to the hearing on

the Preliminary Injunction, depositions were taken of David Gipe,

General Manager of the Arizona operations of Plaintiff, and the

Defendant L. J. Pike. The transcripts of their depositions and the

Exhibits offered in connection therewith were made part of the

record of the hearing on the Preliminary Injunction, and the

said depositions and Exhibits, as well as the transcript of the

hearing on the Preliminary Injunction (which included oral

testimony of Mr. Gipe and of Thomas H. McNamara, President

of Plaintiff, as well as documentary matter) are incorporated

herein and made a part of this stipulation. At the time of Mr.

Pike’s deposition, counsel for Plaintiff asked for a copy of the

minutes of a certain meeting of the Arizona Vegetable Growers

Association. A copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Arizona

Vegetable Growers Association, referred to in the deposition of

Mr. L. J. Pike, was supplied to counsel for the Plaintiff after the

deposition was concluded. Those minutes state that current legis-

lation before the Arizona Legislature was discussed at the meeting.

Two bills were discussed. The first concerned the use of DDT,

and the second the bulk movement out of the State of vegetables

and melons. The minutes state that the DDT bill was referred

to a committee of the Association for further study, and that as

to the latter bill, no formal action was taken by the Board.

Dated this 4th day of November, 1968.

ABRAMSON & CHURCH

Jacob Abramson

EVANS, KITCHEL & JENCKES

James M. Bush

By JAMES M. BUSH

James M. Bush

363 North First Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Attorneys for Bruce Church, Inc.

JENNINGS, STROUSS, SALMON

& TRASK

By RINEY B. SALMON

Riney B. Salmon

By HAMILTON E. McRAE III

Hamilton E. McRae III

By REX E. LEE

Special Counsel

111 West Monroe

Phoenix, Arizona 85003

GARY NELSON

Attorney General of the State

of Arizona

By John M. McGowan

Thomas A. Miller

Special Assistant Attorney General

159 Capitol Building

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

From range land to developed land in four years

The Story of the

Bruce Church, Inc.

Parker, Arizona Farm

EXHIBIT A

wr ™eewr,

(

{Pe

farm, bisecting it into two equal halves. Canal

has five-foot bottom and is 20 {cet scross top.

y -built cement-tined canal runs entire 16,500 foot

tenet

irngation nacrs were covered with earth

hes of the surface. Company-built canal

wpples risers 7,000 gallons per minute.

After completion,

to within two mc:

it |

NER Ae Se PNP INI RU

EXHIBIT B

PRODUCE GROWN IN ARIZONA

BUT PACKED AND SHIPPED FROM BLYTHE, CALIF.

Name of Shipper Watermelons Honeydews Cantaloupes

1966-67:

Eaton Farms, S. L. a .220 80

Church, Inc., Bruce — — 400

1965-66:

Noroian Farms, Nish 165 — —

Eaton Farms, S. L. — 165 234

Church, Inc., Bruce 80

1964-65:

Noroian Farms, Nish 320 — —_

Eaton Farms, S. L. — — 200

Independent = — 90

1963-64:

Noroian Farms 180 — —

Eaton Farms, S. L. == 300 300

Garin Co., The —— 110 —

Martin Produce Co. a 34 170

1962-63:

Eaton Farms, S. L. a 220 280

1961-62:

Eaton Farms, S. L. oa = 180

1960-61: Nothing

1959-60: Nothing

1958-59: Nothing

1957-58: Nothing

1956-57: Nothing

1955-56: Nothing

1954-55: Nothing

1953-54: Nothing

TOTAL 665 1049 2014

GRAND TOTAL 3648

EXHIBIT C

IN REPLY REFER TO:

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

Colorado River Agency

Parker, Arizona 85344

September 27, 1968

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

The crop reports for the Colorado River Indian Irrigation

Project show that, in the following listed years, cantaloupe and/

or honeydew melons were produced on the project.

Year Acres

1948 234

1949 162

1950 360

1951 320

1952 —

1953 —

1954 500

1955 600

1956 460

1957 526

1958 1940

1959 1527

1960 1049

1961 No Report

1962 1386

1963 1610

1964 2021

1965 1192

1966 1580

1967 1979

oo eer

Our records do not “document the individual grower, the ex-

tent of his crop or whee it was processed.

We have accumulated the following history by interview in an

attempt to show where processing was accomplished.

In the early part of the melon history Mr. Chet Johns of the

Pacific Farms did grow a melon crop and attempted to process

the crop in both Blythe and Yuma. Part of the Pacific Farms’

crop was processed in Blythe, California at the Wilco Packing

shed.

The Wilco Produce Company of Blythe, California grew

melon crops from about 1949 through 1962 and processed part

of their crop grown on the project in their Blythe facility.

Mr. Martin Bedorian of Suzy Bel Farms of Blythe, California

processed his crop in Blythe, California at the Wilco Packing

facility.

Mr. Sax Eaton of the S. L. Eaton Farms has grown a melon

crop since about 1962, and also has processed his crop in Blythe,

California.

The Bruce Church Company grew their first crop in 1966 and

since that time have grown yearly crops and processed them in

Blythe, California.

It appears that some melon crop grown on the project has

been processed in Blythe, California every year since 1948. A

more detail history could be completed by researching the old

files of the Wilco Produce Company of Blythe, California.

Sincerely yours,

Tim C. Dye

Land Operations Officer

—

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

BRUCE CHURCH, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiff NO. CIV. 6702 - Phx.

vs.

L. J. PIKE, as Supervisor of F PRELIMINARY

Inspection of the Arizona Fruit INJUNCTION

and Vegetable Standardization

Service, et al.,

Defendants.

This cause coming on to be heard upon the application of

Bruce Church, Inc., plaintiff in the above entitled action, for

a preliminary injunction, and upon plaintiff's verified complaint,

no answer having been filed by defendant, and upon the evi-

dence introduced by both plaintiff and defendant, and after

hearing counsel for the respective parties, and it appearing to

the Court:

1. That the Court has jurisdiction over this controversy.

2. That plaintiff is engaged in the business of growing, pack-

ing and shipping fresh fruits and vegetables, including canta-

loupes, both in the States of Arizona and California and that

such crops grown by plaintiff and other shippers are sold in

interstate commerce.

3. That defendant L. J. Pike, purporting to act under au-

thority of law and pursuant to certain sections of Title 3, Chapter

3, Article 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, has threatened and does

threaten to interfere with, impede, restrain, prevent and pro-

hibit plaintiff from loading and transporting, loose and in bulk,

a crop of cantaloupes, grown by plaintiff at Parker, Arizona,

across the state line of Arizona into the State of California for

processing, packing and shipping into interstate and foreign

commerce; and

4. That said crop of cantaloupes will mature and be ready

for harvest, processing, packing and shipping within the next

week or ten days, and for a period of three to five weeks there-

after; that plaintiff does not have and there is not available

to plaintiff at Parker, Arizona, adequate facilities for processing,

packing and shipping said cantaloupes; that plaintiff does have

adequate processing, packing and shipping facilities for said

cantaloupes in Blythe, California, and that if said crop of

cantaloupes is not promptly processed, packed and shipped by

plaintiff by and through the use of its facilities at Blythe, Cali-

fornia, such crop will spoil and plaintiff will sustain an unre-

coverable financial loss of approximately $300,000.00; and

5. That if plaintiff is not permitted to process, pack and ship

its crop of cantaloupes, as aforesaid, at its facilities in Blythe,

California, it will sustain a further financial loss and damage

as the result of loss of customers and markets and a competitive

position in the produce industry, the amount of such damage

being impossible to ascertain with any degree of certainty.

6. That the containers in which plaintiff's cantaloupes will

be packed and shipped are in all respects identical to those re-

quired under the laws of the State of Arizona, and that the laws

of the State of California with respect to inspection, packing,

gtading, marking and shipping of cantaloupes are in all material

respects substantially similar to applicable laws of the State of

Arizona; and

7. That for a number of years prior hereto, certain growers

and shippers, including plaintiff, have transported cantaloupes,

loose and in bulk, across the state line of Arizona for processing,

packing and shipping and that such practice has been with the

knowledge and approval and without interference of Defendant

Pike or the State of Arizona; and

8. That there is a substantial question of whether any interpre-

tation, application or enforcement of the Arizona Fruit and

Vegetable Standardization Laws in the manner proposed and

threatened by defendant, as alleged in plaintiff's complaint, would

constitute an unreasonable and undue burden upon and obstruct-

tion of interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause,

Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States and,

therefore in violation of plaintiff's rights; and

9. That neither defendant Pike nor the State of Arizona will

sustain material damage or injury if the preliminary injunction

is granted.

For the reasons hereinabove set forth, and because of the ir-

reparable nature of plaintiff's injury, and, further, because plain-

tiff has no adequate remedy at law, it appears to the Court that

a preliminary injunction should issue as prayed for in plaintiff's

complaint.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

DECREED that plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction

be and the same hereby is granted, and that pending trial of this

matter defendant L. J. Pike, his deputies, agents, servants, em-

ployees, and attorneys, and all persons in active concert and

participation with them be and are hereby restrained from in any

manner, either directly or indirectly threatening, ordering, attempt-

ing or acting (a) to hinder, interfere with, impede, restrain, pro-

hibit or prevent the plaintiff from harvesting its crops of can-

taloupes, grown by plaintiff in the State of Arizona, in, around

or about Parker, Arizona, and from placing the same loose in

trailers and transporting them across the state line of Arizona

into the State of California for processing and packing in standard

containers like those in use in Arizona, preparatory to shipment

and shipment to buyers or consignees in the various states of the

nation and foreign commerce; (b) to seize and take possession

of any crops so harvested, loaded or transported; (c) to take

any action to forfeit bonds or to deny or revoke licenses of

plaintiff because of such harvesting, loading or transportation of

such crops; or (d) to take any other action penalizing, injuring

or damaging plaintiff on account or because of such harvesting,

loading or transporting.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that said preliminary injunction

shall remain in full force and effect until final hearing in this

case and further order of this Court.

DATED this 7th day of June, 1968.

s/ Charles M. Merrill

Judge, United States Court of

Appeals For The Ninth Circuit

s/ Walter E. Craig

United States District Judge

s/ C. A. Muecke

United States District Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

BRUCE CHURCH, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

i No. Civ-6702 Phx.

L. J. PIKE, as Supervisor of i OPINION AND

Inspection of the Arizona Fruit ORDER

and Vegetable Standardization

Service, et al.,

Defendants.

CRAIG, D. J.

The within action was instituted by plaintiff, Bruce Church,

Inc., a California corporation, against L. J. Pike, as Supervisor

of Inspection of the Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization

Service, and others.

Plaintiff is engaged in extensive agricultural operations, in-

cluding the growing, harvesting, packaging and shipping of

agricultural products in California and Arizona.

In 1964 plaintiff entered into a lease with the Secretary of

the Interior, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Colorado

River Indian Agency and the Colorado Indian Tribes under the

terms of which plaintiff undertook, at substantial expense, to

develop 6,400 acres of unimproved land in the Colorado River

Indian Reservation near Parker, Arizona. Plaintiff does not have

packing facilities at Parker and at least in the foreseeable future

apparently had no intention of developing packing facilities at

that location for the reason that it had adequate facilities at

Blythe, California, some 31 miles distant, which could be econom-

ically used in sorting, grading, packing and shipping the produce

grown and harvested on the Arizona side of the river. It was

plaintiff's intention and practice to harvest its melons grown in

the Parker area, to load them in trailers and to haul the bulk

load to plaintiff's packing facilities at Blythe, where the melons

were sorted, inspected, packed and shipped.

Title 3, Chapter 3, Article 4, Arizona Revised Statutes con-

stitutes the Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Act

(§§ 3-481 et seq., A.R.S.) § 3-843 of the Act provides for the

creation of the office of Supervisor of Inspection, charged with

the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of the Act. De-

fendant Pike currently holds that position. The Arizona Act

includes certain requirements with respect to containers, labeling,

inspecting, grading, licensing, etc., and provides certain sanctions

for failure to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules

and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

In March, 1968, defendant Pike, acting in his official capacity

and under his interpretation of the Fruit and Vegetable Standard-

ization Act, supra, notified plaintiff that no future transportation

of bulk shipments of cantaloupe harvested by plaintiff would

be allowed out of the State of Arizona to the plaintiff's packing

facilities at Blythe, California.

Under the provisions of Article 1, § 8 of the United States

Constitution (Commerce Clause) and Article 6 of the United

States Constitution (Supremacy Clause) and pursuant to the

provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201, plaintiff instituted this action

questioning the constitutionality of the Arizona Fruit and Vege-

table Standardization Act, supra, insofar as its enforcement by

defendant Pike under his interpretation of the Act constitutes

an unreasonable and unlawful burden upon interstate commerce.

This Court has jurisdiction by virtue of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331

and Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The complaint questions the constitutionality of a state statute.

Consequently, a Three Judge Court was convened pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284. In order to conserve the crop

" ee a a ad

—

then being harvested, a temporary restraining order was issued

by this Court and continued by stipulation until a hearing on the

merits on June 7, 1968.

A temporary injunction issued from this Court pending ulti-

mate determination of the issues, which injunction restrained

the defendant Pike from further acts of deterrence with respect

to plaintiff's bulk shipments of melons from its farms in Arizona

to its packing plant in California.

The parties have entered into an agreed statement of facts

as to which this Court has taken notice. The parties have sub-

mitted memoranda in support of the respective positions of the

parties.

We are first confronted with the question as to whether the

abstention doctrine should be invoked in this case. To paraphrase

the question propounded by the United States Supreme Court

in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 US. 315, 318, 63 S.Ct. 1098,

1099, and quoted in Alabama Public Service Commission v.

Southern Railway Co., 341 US. 341, 71 S.Ct 762:

“Assuming that the federal district court had jurisdiction,

should it, as a matter of sound equitable discretion, have

declined to exercise that jurisdiction here?”

Many cases involving Three Judge Courts with jurisdiction predi-

cated upon both the presence of a federal question and diversity

of citizenship have invoked the abstention doctrine. See Harrison

v. NAACP, 360 US. 167, 79 S.Ct. 1025; Alabama Public Service

Commission v. Southern Railway Co., supra. The issue here is

whether this case presents a situation in which this Court should

exercise the power of abstention. Apparently there is no clear

cut rule existing to guide a Court in making this determination.

Certain criteria, however, appear in existing decisions that indicate

when it is appropriate to exercise the power of abstention. In

Harrison, supra, the Court stated:

“This now well-established procedure is aimed at the avoid-

ance of unnecessary interference by the federal courts with

- a

proper and validly administered state concerns, a course so

essential to the balanced working of our federal system. To

minimize the possibility of such interference a ‘scrupulous re-

gard for the rightful independence of state governments * * *

should at all times actuate the federal courts,’ (authorities

cited) as their ‘contribution * * * in furthering the harmonious

relation between state and federal authority * * *.’ (authori-

ties cited) In the service of this doctrine, which this Court has

applied in many different contexts, no principle has found more

consistent or clear expression than that the federal courts

should not adjudicate the constitutionality of state enactments

fairly Open to interpretation until the state courts have been

afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass upon them. (authori-

ties cited) This principle does not, of course, involve the adbi-

cation [sic] of federal] jurisdiction, but only the postponement

of its exercise; it serves the policy of comity inherent in the

doctrine of abstention; and it spares the federal courts of un-

necessary constitutional adjudication. (authorities cited)”

A recent discussion of the abstention doctrine in Zwickler v.

Koota, 88 S.Ct. 391, 395, states that the power should be exer-

cised “only in narrowly limited ‘special circumstances’.” Among

the “special circumstances” noted in Zwickler are (1) the sus-

ceptibility of a state statute to a construction by the state courts

that would avoid or modify constitutional questions before the

federal court, and (2) the possibility that adjudication would

disrupt state administrative processes. In Zwickler neither of

these “circumstances” was present, and the court held, therefore,

that it was error for the district court to apply the doctrine. The

court found application of the doctrine inappropriate where

plaintiff attacked a state statute on its face as being repugnant to

the First Amendment. We do not believe the instant case an

appropriate one to invoke the abstention doctrine.

The Arizona Fruit and Vegetable S$ -dardization Act has never

been constitutionally construed by the Arizona courts, nor do we

believe it necessary to the disposition of this case to determine the

constitutionality of that Act. Moreover, a present adjudication

of this case through constitutional interpretation might well dis.

rupt the legitimate interests of the State of Arizona.

A reading of the Act reveals no clear basis nor authority for

the issuance of the order by the defendant, Supervisor of Inspec-

tion of the Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Service,

which order has been attacked by the plaintiff in this case. The

constitutionality of the Act, then, is not in question. What is in

question is the construction placed upon that Act by the Super-

intendent and the constitutionality of the order issued by him

pursuant to his construction.

A review of the agreed statement of facts and the Act in

question indicates that the order complained of constitutes an

unlawful burden upon interstate commerce. See Foster Fountain

Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 US. 1, 49 S.Ct. 1; Johnson v. Haydel,

278 US. 16, 49 S.Ct. 6; Schafer v. Farmers Grain Co., 268 US.

189, 45 S.Ct. 481; Lemke v. Farmers Grain Co., 258 US. 50,

42 S.Ct. 244. If the application of the Arizona Fruit and Vege-

table Standardization Act, as interpreted by the Supervisor of

Inspection, could be construed to be a valid interpretation and

application of the statute, then the statute so interpreted and

applied is unconstitutional.

WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DE-

CREED that the injunction heretofore issued restraining the

defendant, L. J. Pike, his deputies, agents, servants, employees

and attorneys and all persons in active concert and participation

with them from in any manner, either directly or indirectly,

threatening, ordering, attempting or acting (a) to hinder, inter-

fere with, impede, restrain, prohibit or prevent plaintiff from

harvesting its crops of cantaloupe grown by plaintiff in the

State of Arizona, in the vicinity of Parker, Arizona, and from

transporting said cantaloupe in bulk into the State of California;

(b) to seize and take possession of any crops harvested, loaded

or transported; (c) to take any action to forfeit bonds, or to

deny or revoke licenses of the plaintiff because of harvesting,

loading or transporting such crops; or (d) to take any other

action penalizing, injuring or damaging plaintiff on account of

ot because of such harvesting, loading or transporting in interstate

commerce shall be permanent.

DATED this 4th day of March, 1969.

CHARLES M. MERRILL

Charles M. Merrill, U.S. Circuit Judge

WALTER E. CRAIG

Walter E. Craig, U.S. District Judge

C. A. MUECKE

C. A. Muecke, U.S. District Judge

6961 ‘CT 2090390

*4epo3

pe20u sen uoyszospesanf gorge UT CET “ON GITA juewn320

{B20 203 208 ST S880 STQL *zepue {so (4zeumns e423 UO

peceyd es} esvo ey2 pus pe20u St wozaotpstant etqeqozd

‘32n0p 0q2 4q pezepzeuce pus perzzeqne weeq Suysey

SeeD STYI UT VoOTI>TPETAMS Jo JUSwSIEIE SUL

*suoEtTIY JO 329F238T0 O42 203

22NOD 329FI38Fq E2838 Peratun 43 woz3 IVEddV

*ouy ‘yoany) eonszg

‘ueTteddy

**930 ‘entd *f Ue107

69 61 ‘usar 4qopQ ‘ eee= TOE “ON

SILI QINUGH 3G} JO Janop susidnye

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.