Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down a North Carolina law prohibiting the sale of apples in closed containers marked with any apple grade other than the United States Department of Agriculture grade. However, displaying the USDA grade was not required. Washington state, a major apple producer, used apple standards superior to those used by the USDA. The Court found that North Carolina's law violated the Commerce Clause because they discriminated against Washington state apple producers while working to the advantage of local North Carolina apple growers.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (en)
- 헌트 대 워싱턴 주 사과광고국 사건 (ko)
|
rdfs:comment
| - 헌트 대 워싱턴주 사과광고국 사건(Hunt v Washington State Apple Advertising Commission)은 미국 연방대법원의 유명 판례이다. 미국 워싱턴주는 미국내 주요 사과산지로 많은 양을 다른 주에 수출하고 있었다. 노스캐롤라이나 주는 각 주의 품질기준 대신 미국농림부 기준 품질마크를 주내 사과상자에 요구하였다. 그러자 워싱턴 주는 노스캐롤라이나주 사과농장에게 혜택을 주기 위한 이 통상조항위반이라고 하여 소를 제기하였다. (ko)
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down a North Carolina law prohibiting the sale of apples in closed containers marked with any apple grade other than the United States Department of Agriculture grade. However, displaying the USDA grade was not required. Washington state, a major apple producer, used apple standards superior to those used by the USDA. The Court found that North Carolina's law violated the Commerce Clause because they discriminated against Washington state apple producers while working to the advantage of local North Carolina apple growers. (en)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, et al. v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
JoinMajority
| |
LawsApplied
| |
oyez
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
Prior
| - Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n v. Holshouser, 408 F. Supp. 857 (en)
|
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueDate
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| - Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, (en)
|
courtlistener
| |
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
fullname
| - Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, et al. v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (en)
|
Holding
| - North Carolina violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state apple growers. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| - Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (en)
|
majority
| |
loc
| |
has abstract
| - Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down a North Carolina law prohibiting the sale of apples in closed containers marked with any apple grade other than the United States Department of Agriculture grade. However, displaying the USDA grade was not required. Washington state, a major apple producer, used apple standards superior to those used by the USDA. The Court found that North Carolina's law violated the Commerce Clause because they discriminated against Washington state apple producers while working to the advantage of local North Carolina apple growers. John R. Jordan, Jr., argued the cause for Hunt. With him on the brief were Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Millard R. Rich, Jr., Deputy Attorney General. Slade Gorton, Attorney General of Washington, argued the cause for the Washington State Apple Advertising Commission. With him on the brief were Edward B. Mackie, Deputy Attorney General, and James Arneil, Special Assistant Attorney General. (en)
- 헌트 대 워싱턴주 사과광고국 사건(Hunt v Washington State Apple Advertising Commission)은 미국 연방대법원의 유명 판례이다. 미국 워싱턴주는 미국내 주요 사과산지로 많은 양을 다른 주에 수출하고 있었다. 노스캐롤라이나 주는 각 주의 품질기준 대신 미국농림부 기준 품질마크를 주내 사과상자에 요구하였다. 그러자 워싱턴 주는 노스캐롤라이나주 사과농장에게 혜택을 주기 위한 이 통상조항위반이라고 하여 소를 제기하였다. (ko)
|
cornell
| |
googlescholar
| |
NotParticipating
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |