Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul
ArgueDate=January 8
ArgueYear=1963
DecideDate=May 13
DecideYear=1963
FullName=Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc., et al. v. Paul, Director of the Department of Agriculture of California, et al.
USVol=373
USPage=132
Citation=
Prior=
Subsequent=
Holding=California Agricultural Code §792 neither violates the Supremacy Clause nor the Equal Protection Clause.
SCOTUS=1962-1965
Majority=Brennan
JoinMajority=Warren, Harlan, Stewart, Goldberg
Dissent=White
JoinDissent=Black, Douglas, Clark
LawsApplied=

"Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul", 373 U.S. 132 (1963),ref|citation was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a California law that imposed minimum ripeness standards on avocados imported into the state. The law barred retail sale of avocados that didn't meet the ripeness standard, which was measured by standard oil content. Florida, which grows a lot of avocados, used a federal standard of ripeness for wholesale marketing purposes. Florida brought this suit to oppose the California law, which it argued discouraged their right to engage in interstate commerce.

In this case, the preemption doctrine failed because the court held that simultaneous compliance was possible. The Court employed a dormant commerce clause analysis and held that the law was not overly burdensome to interstate commerce. The Court found the California law to "do no more than promote orderly competition among the South Florida growers."

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 373

Further reading

*cite journal |last=O'Neil |first=Robert M. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1975 |month= |title=State Consumer Protection in a Federal System |journal=Arizona State Law Journal |volume=1975 |issue= |pages=715–735 |issn=01644297 |url= |accessdate= |quote=

External links

* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=373&page=132 373 U.S. 132] Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.