Case Law Index Marketing Orders

January 1, 1934 – May 25, 2022

 

This index provides a comprehensive though not necessarily exhaustive compilation of reported and unreported federal and state court decisions involving Marketing Orders that were decided between the dates listed above. The cases are listed in reverse chronological order. The “Text” link goes to the freely available Google Scholar text of the opinion.  These listings are for educational purposes only, and are not a substitute for legal counsel.

---

SUPREME COURT

Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 135 S. Ct. 2419 (U.S. June 22, 2015)(regulatory reserve was taking under Constitution) Text

Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 133 S. Ct. 2053, 186 L. Ed. 2d 69 (2013)(AMAA takings claim regarding raisin marketing order) Text

Hillside Dairy Inc. v. Lyons, 539 U.S. 59 (2003) (out of state producers sued CA for their pricing and milk pooling regulations)   Text

United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405, 121 S. Ct. 2334, 150 L. Ed. 2d 438 (2001) (challenging assessment imposed on mushrooms) Text

Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliott, 521 U.S. 457, 117 S. Ct. 2130, 138 L. Ed. 2d 585 (1997) (challenged assessments to pay for generic advertising) Text

W. Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186, 114 S. Ct. 2205, 129 L. Ed. 2d 157 (1994) (action challenging milk pricing order as violating commerce clause) Text

Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 104 S. Ct. 2450, 81 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1984) (challenging milk market orders) Text

Nat’l Broiler Mktg. Ass’n v. United States, 436 U.S. 816, 98 S. Ct. 2122, 56 L. Ed. 2d 728 (1978) (antitrust action against nonprofit cooperative association) Text

Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168, 90 S. Ct. 314, 24 L. Ed. 2d 345 (1969)( for judgment invalidating a provision in a milk market regulation) Text

Carnation Co. v. Pac. Westbound Conference, 383 U.S. 213, 86 S. Ct. 781, 15 L. Ed. 2d 709 (1966) (antitrust action for rate-making agreement) Text

Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews, 375 U.S. 361 (1964) (challenging constitutionality of regulations and orders of the Florida Milk Commission) Text

Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 83 S. Ct. 1210, 10 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1963) (enforcement of federal regulation on maturity of avocados) Text

Lehigh Val. Co-op. Farmers, Inc. v. United States, 370 U.S. 76, 82 S. Ct. 1168, 8 L. Ed. 2d 345 (1962) (actions involving validity of provisions requiring non-pool handlers to make compensatory payments) Text

Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass’n v. United States, 362 U.S. 458, 80 S. Ct. 847, 4 L. Ed. 2d 880 (1960) (antitrust action against agricultural cooperative) Text

Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Jacobsen, 362 U.S. 73, 80 S. Ct. 568, 4 L. Ed. 2d 568 (1960) (violation of the AMAA) Text

Maneja v. Waialua Agr. Co., 349 U.S. 254, 75 S. Ct. 719, 99 L. Ed. 1040 (1955) (applicability of agricultural exemption for overtime labor) Text

Brannan v. Stark, 342 U.S. 451, 72 S. Ct. 433, 96 L. Ed. 497 (1952) (enforcing provisions of an order regulating the handling of milk) Text

H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525, 69 S. Ct. 657, 93 L. Ed. 865 (1949) (denial of license to open new dairy plant) Text

United States v. Ruzicka, 329 U.S. 287, 67 S. Ct. 207, 91 L. Ed. 290 (1946) (mandatory injunction commanding compliance with Milk Order) Text

Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 64 S. Ct. 559, 88 L. Ed. 733 (1944) (action to enjoin Secretary from carrying out order) Text

Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Comm’n of Pennsylvania, 318 U.S. 261, 63 S. Ct. 617, 87 L. Ed. 748 (1943) (denial of state diary license) Text

Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 63 S. Ct. 307, 87 L. Ed. 315 (1943) (validation of state law) Text

Pac. Coast Dairy v. Dep’t of Agric. of Cal., 318 U.S. 285, 63 S. Ct. 628, 87 L. Ed. 761 (1943) (revoking milk distributor’s license) Text

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L. Ed. 122 (1942) (action for injunction) Text

United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110, 62 S. Ct. 523, 86 L. Ed. 726 (1942)( enforcement of provisions of an order) Text

United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., 307 U.S. 533, 59 S. Ct. 993, 83 L. Ed. 1446 (1939) (injunction to compel compliance) Text

H.P. Hood & Sons v. United States, 307 U.S. 588, 59 S. Ct. 1019, 83 L. Ed. 1478 (1939) (violating the terms of a marketing order) Text

United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 60 S. Ct. 182, 84 L. Ed. 181 (1939) (action for combination and conspiracy in in fluid milk in violation) Text

Milk Control Bd. of Pennsylvania v. Eisenberg Farm Prod., 306 U.S. 346, 59 S. Ct. 528, 83 L. Ed. 752 (1939) (preventing defendent from acting as a milk dealer without a license) Text

 

---

FIRST CIRCUIT

Grant’s Dairy–Maine, LLC v. Comm’r of Maine Dep’t of Agric., Food & Rural Res., 232 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2000) (preemption under the Supremacy Clause) Text

New York State Dairy Foods, Inc. v. Ne. Dairy Compact Comm’n, 198 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (challenging regulations promulgated by Compact Commission) Text

New York State Dairy Foods, Inc. v. Ne. Dairy Compact Comm’n, 26 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D. Mass. 1998), aff’d, 198 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (challenging regulations promulgated by Compact Commission) Text

Johnson v. Koplovsky Foods, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 48, 50 (D. Mass. 1998) (injuctive relief for failure to make payment for fruit sold and delivered) Text

Grant’s Dairy, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 20 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D. Me. 1998) (challenging Commission’s authority to impose the minimum prices upon dealer) Text

Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Tax Assessor, State of Me., 116 F.3d 943 (1st Cir. 1997) (challenging Maine’s milk handling surcharge as violative of commerce clause) Text

Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Mahany, 943 F. Supp. 83 (D. Me. 1996) (alleging that milk handling tax and subsidies to state dairy farmers violated negative commerce clause) Text

Adams v. Watson, 10 F.3d 915 (1st Cir. 1993) (challenging constitutionality of milk pricing order) Text

H.P. Hood, Inc. v. Comm’r of Agric., Food & Rural Res., 764 F. Supp. 662 (D. Me. 1991)(declaratory relief and to enjoin state proceeding to collect amounts dealer allegedly owed to Milk Pool) Text

Sol v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 843 F.2d 560 (1st Cir. 1988) (penalty for violation of contract to participate in dairy termination program) Text

United States v. Daylight Dairy Prod., Inc., 822 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1987) (enforcement of provisions of milk marketing order) Text

United States v. Daylight Dairy Prod., Inc., 646 F. Supp. 566 (D. Mass. 1986), aff’d, 822 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1987) (enforcement of milk order provisions) Text

Crane v. Comm’r of Dep’t of Agric., Food & Rural Res., 602 F. Supp. 280 (D. Me. 1985) (state law not preempted by AMAA) Text

Maine Potato Growers, Inc. v. Butz, 540 F.2d 518 (1st Cir. 1976) (licenses to trade perishable agricultural commodities) Text

United States v. Guimond Farms, Inc., 203 F. Supp. 471 (D. Mass. 1962) (enforcement of order) Text

H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525, 69 S. Ct. 657, 93 L. Ed. 865 (1949) (license denial for new plant) Text

Parker v. United States, 153 F.2d 66 (1st Cir. 1946) (liability for civil contempt) Text

United States v. Wood, 61 F. Supp. 175 (D. Mass. 1945) (compel compliance with terms of a milk marketing order) Text

Parker v. United States, 135 F.2d 54 (1st Cir. 1943) (injunction and compliance with marketing order) Text

Cosgrove v. Wickard, 49 F. Supp. 232 (D. Mass. 1943) (judicial review of Secretary’s ruling) Text

Fairview Creamery v. Wickard, 42 F. Supp. 757 (D. Me. 1942) (review of secretary ruling for milk delivery) Text

In re Shawsheen Dairy, 47 F. Supp. 494 (D. Mass. 1942) (review of secretary order regarding milk handlers to make advanced payments at stipulated rates) Text

Parker v. United States, 126 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1942) (enforcement of marketing order) Text

Elm Spring Farm v. United States, 127 F.2d 920 (1st Cir. 1942) (compel compliance with an order) Text

United States v. Elm Spring Farm, 38 F. Supp. 508 (D. Mass. 1941), decree modified, 127 F.2d 920 (1st Cir. 1942) (to compel compliance) Text

United States v. H. P. Hood & Sons, 26 F. Supp. 672 (D. Mass.), decree aff’d, 307 U.S. 588, 59 S. Ct. 1019, 83 L. Ed. 1478 (1939), and decree aff’d sub nom. Green Valley Creamery v. United States, 108 F.2d 342 (1st Cir. 1939) (compliance with a marketing order) Text

Green Valley Creamery v. United States, 108 F.2d 342 (1st Cir. 1939), disapproved of by Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168, 90 S. Ct. 314, 24 L. Ed. 2d 345 (1969) (compliance with marketing order) Text

Massachusetts Farmers Def. Comm. v. United States, 26 F. Supp. 941 (D. Mass. 1939) (challenge the constitutionality) Text

United States v. H. P. Hood & Sons, 26 F. Supp. 672 (D. Mass.), decree aff’d, 307 U.S. 588, 59 S. Ct. 1019, 83 L. Ed. 1478 (1939) (compel defendants to comply with a marketing order) Text

H. P. Hood & Sons v. United States, 97 F.2d 677 (1st Cir. 1938), vacated sub nom. Green Valley Creamery v. United States, 105 F.2d 754 (1st Cir. 1939) (appeal from temporary injunction) Text

United States v. David Buttrick Co., 91 F.2d 66 (1st Cir. 1937) (no subject matter jurisdiction) Text

United States v. Whiting Milk Co., 21 F. Supp. 321 (D. Mass. 1937), aff’d sub nom. H. P. Hood & Sons v. United States, 97 F.2d 677 (1st Cir. 1938), vacated sub nom. Green Valley Creamery v. United States, 105 F.2d 754 (1st Cir. 1939) (injunctive relief) Text

United States v. David Buttrick Co., 15 F. Supp. 655 (D. Mass. 1936), vacated, 91 F.2d 66 (1st Cir. 1937) (compliance with order) Text

United States v. Seven Oaks Dairy Co., 10 F. Supp. 995 (D. Mass. 1935) (compliance with marketing order) Text

Franklin Process Co. v. Hoosac Mills Corp., 8 F. Supp. 552 (D. Mass. 1934), rev’d sub nom. Butler v. United States, 78 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1935), aff’d, 297 U.S. 1, 56 S. Ct. 312, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936) (balance due on processing and floor stock taxes) Text

 

---

SECOND CIRCUIT

Sitts v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., 417 F. Supp. 3d 433 (D. Vt. 2019) (alleging monopsony power in Federal Marketing Order)

Sitts v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-287, 2019 WL 3298537, at *1 (D. Vt. July 23, 2019) (alleging monopsony power in Federal Marketing Order) Text

Sitts v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., 276 F. Supp. 3d 195 (D. Vt. 2017) (action alleging that dairy marketing cooperative and milk-marketing agency violated Sherman Act by engaging in conspiracy with milk processors) Text

Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., No. 5:09-CV-230, 2015 WL 13528816, at *1 (D. Vt. June 30, 2015) (conspiracy at the processor and cooperative levels to control the supply milk)

Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., No. 5:09-CV-230, 2014 WL 6682436 (D. Vt. Nov. 25, 2014)(proposed settlement) Text

Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., No. 5:09-CV-230, 2014 WL 3900324 (D. Vt. July 9, 2014)(denial of expedited class action settlement) Text

Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., No. 5:09-CV-230, 2012 WL 5844871 (D. Vt. Nov. 19, 2012)(proposed class action, predominance requirement)

Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., No. 5:09-CV-230, 2011 WL 3361233 (D. Vt. Aug. 3, 2011)(Approving in part and denying in part settlement) Text

Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., No. 5:09-CV-230, 2011 WL 1706778 (D. Vt. May 4, 2011) (revised settlement, denying motion to intervene) Text

Taylor & Fulton Packing, LLC v. Marco Int’l Foods, LLC, No. 09-CV-2614, 2011 WL 6329194, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2011) (enforcement of the statutory trust provisions of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930; tomatoes were issued pursuant to marketing order)

Boehner v. Heise, 410 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (suit against board controlling a ginseng marketing order)  Text

Organic Cow, LLC v. Center For New England Dairy Compact Research, 335 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2003) (organic producers trying to get an exemption from paying into the over-order price mechanism)   Text

Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc. v. Land O’Lakes, Inc., 253 F.Supp.2d 262 (D. Conn. 2003) (antitrust claim against dairy industry because of their use of a marketing order)   Text

The Organic Cow, LLC v. Ne. Dairy Compact Comm’n, 164 F. Supp. 2d 412 (D. Vt. 2001) (petition for an exemption) Text

Stew Leonard’s v. Glickman, 199 F.R.D. 48 (D. Conn. 2001) (seeking reversal of the Secretary’s decision to deny it “producer-handler” status)

St. Albans Co-op. Creamery, Inc. v. Glickman, 68 F. Supp. 2d 380 (D. Vt. 1999) (challenging validity of Secretary of Agriculture’s final rule and order amending federal milk market orders)Text

Organic Cow, LLC v. Ne. Dairy Compact Comm’n, 46 F. Supp. 2d 298 (D. Vt. 1999) (request of organic milk marketer for exemption from requirement denied) Text

Farmland Dairies v. McGuire, 789 F. Supp. 1243 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (challenging New York’s implementation of statute providing for establishment of interim minimum prices for milk) Text

In re Ne. Dairy Co-op. Fed’n, Inc., 72 B.R. 663 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y.), adopted, 76 B.R. 910 (N.D.N.Y. 1987) (bankruptcy proceeding) Text

Mulroy v. Block, 569 F. Supp. 256 (N.D.N.Y. 1983) (action to enjoin Secretary of Agriculture from collecting sums pursuant to amendments to milk price support systems) Text

Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc. v. Block, 544 F. Supp. 1351 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) (reviewing order governing pricing and milk classifications) Text

United States v. Agri-Mark, Inc., No. 80-174, 1981 WL 2057, at *1 (D. Vt. Apr. 1, 1981) (violation of marketing order)

Fairdale Farms, Inc. v. Yankee Milk, Inc., 635 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir. 1980) (antitrust action)Text

Friendship Dairies, Inc. v. Butz, 432 F. Supp. 508 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 573 F.2d 1290 (2d Cir. 1977) (review an amendment to a milk marketing order) Text

Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc. v. Butz, 390 F. Supp. 852 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) (review of a final decision of the Secretary of Agriculture upholding validity of portion of milk marketing order ) Text

Cranston v. Hardin, 504 F.2d 566 (2d Cir. 1974) (action against milk producers association for price differentials) Text

Weissglass Gold Seal Dairy Corp. v. Butz, 369 F. Supp. 632 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (seeking judicial review of determination by market administrator that milk handlers had inadequately priced certain milk in their inventory) Text

Dairylea Co-op., Inc. v. Butz, 504 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1974) (challenging milk marketing order provisions governing payment to producers in area) Text

Dairylea Co-op., Inc. v. Butz, 366 F. Supp. 1335 (S.D.N.Y. 1973), aff’d, 504 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1974) (challenging milk marketing order provisions governing payment to producers in area) Text

Cranston v.Hardin, 428 F.2d 822 (2d Cir. 1970) (injunction against allegedly discriminatory and as such unconstitutional price differentials) Text

Cranston v. Freeman, 290 F. Supp. 785 (N.D.N.Y. 1968), rev’d sub nom. Cranston v.Hardin, 428 F.2d 822 (2d Cir. 1970) (challenging farm location differentials )Text

Foster v. Freeman, 271 F. Supp. 33 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (action in enjoin payments of those not members of a dairy cooperative) Text

Freeman v. Brown Bros. Harriman & Co., 250 F. Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 357 F.2d 741 (2d Cir. 1966) (compel enforcement of a subpoena) Text

Boonville Farms Co-op., Inc. v. Freeman, 358 F.2d 681 (2d Cir. 1966)( review of ruling by Secretary)Text

Freeman v. Brown Bros. Harriman & Co., 357 F.2d 741 (2d Cir. 1966) (subpoena enforcement) Text

Fitchett Bros. v. Freeman, 241 F. Supp. 181 (S.D.N.Y. 1965) (action to review decision)Text

Sunnydale Farms, Inc. v. Freeman, 213 F. Supp. 773 (E.D.N.Y. 1963) (review ruling for payment requirement) Text

Knudsen Bros. Dairy v. Freeman, 303 F.2d 886 (2d Cir. 1962) (authorization of market order by AMAA) Text

M H Renken Dairy Co v. Benson, 164 F. Supp. 813 (E.D.N.Y. 1958) (review ruling for payment) Text

United States v. Hinman Farms Prod., Inc., 156 F. Supp. 607 (N.D.N.Y. 1957) (compel compliance) Text

Crowley’s Milk Co. v. Brannan, 198 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1952) (petition for refund of money) Text

Kass v. Brannan, 196 F.2d 791 (2d Cir. 1952) (review USDA decision to refund money paid under milk marketing order) Text

Grandview Dairy v. Jones, 157 F.2d 5 (2d Cir. 1946) (review administrative determination) Text

Shawangunk Co-op. Dairies v. Jones, 59 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1945), rev’d, 153 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1946) (reviewing ruling on refund and wrongfully assessed payment) Text

Grandview Dairy v. Jones, 61 F. Supp. 460 (E.D.N.Y. 1945), aff’d, 157 F.2d 5 (2d Cir. 1946) (action on claims for service payments ) Text

Bowles v. Dairymen’s League Co-op. Ass’n, 61 F. Supp. 358 (S.D.N.Y. 1945) (violations of maximum price regulation) Text

Wetmiller Dairy & Farm Prod. Co. v. Wickard, 60 F. Supp. 622, 624 (W.D.N.Y. 1944) (review of secretary of Ag order for classification of cream) Text

United States v. Hogansburg Milk Co., 57 F. Supp. 297 (N.D.N.Y. 1944) (injunction restraining defendant from handling milk in violation of order) Text

New England Dairies v. Wickard, 144 F.2d 460 (2d Cir. 1944) (payment to a market administrator) Text

Waddington Milk Co. v. Wickard, 140 F.2d 97 (2d Cir. 1944) (review a ruling of the Secretary) Text

New York State Guernsey Breeders’ Co-op. v. Wickard, 141 F.2d 805 (2d Cir. 1944) (review a ruling of the Secretary dismissing a petition) Text

Queensboro Farms Prod. v. Wickard, 137 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1943) (review a ruling of the Secretary dismissing a petition)Text

New England Dairies v. Wickard, 51 F. Supp. 444 (D. Vt. 1943), aff’d, 144 F.2d 460 (2d Cir. 1944) (review a ruling of the Secretary dismissing a petition) Text

U S v. Levine, 129 F.2d 745 (2d Cir. 1942) (marketing administrator accepting bribes) Text

M.H. Renken Dairy Co. v. Wickard, 47 F. Supp. 212 (E.D.N.Y. 1942) (review ruling made by the Secretary) Text

Queensboro Farm Prod. v. Wickard, 47 F. Supp. 206 (E.D.N.Y. 1942), aff’d sub nom. Queensboro Farms Prod. v. Wickard, 137 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1943) (review a ruling of the Secretary dismissing a petition) Text

Vogt’s Dairies v. Wickard, 45 F. Supp. 94, 94 (S.D.N.Y. 1942) (review of rulings of secretary of Ag not being in accordance to the law) Text

Sauquoit Valley Farmers Co-op. v. Wickard, 45 F. Supp. 104 (N.D.N.Y. 1942) (review of rulings of secretary of ag on what is classified as cream) Text

United States v. Dake, 42 F. Supp. 833 (N.D.N.Y. 1941) (recovery of certain sums allegedly due the Milk Marketing Administrator) Text

United States v. Adler’s Creamery, 107 F.2d 987 (2d Cir. 1939) (enforce an order regulating the handling of milk) Text

New York State Guernsey Breeders’ Co-op v. Wallace, 28 F. Supp. 590 (N.D.N.Y. 1939) (review ruling by the Secretary) Text

United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., 26 F. Supp. 534 (N.D.N.Y.), rev’d and remanded, 307 U.S. 533, 59 S. Ct. 993, 83 L. Ed. 1446 (1939)Text

United States v. Corinth Creamery, 21 F. Supp. 265 (D. Vt. 1937) (designation as handler) Text

---

THIRD CIRCUIT

Spectrum Produce Distrib., Inc. v. Fresh Mktg., Inc., No. CV 11-6368 (JBS-KMW), 2011 WL 13063669 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2011) (order to show cause without Notice) Text

Baiardi Food Chain v. United States, 482 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2007) (review of decision of secretary of USDA) Text

Cloverland-Green Spring Dairies, Inc. v. Pa. Milk Marketing Bd., 462 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2006) (challenging Pennsylvania’s enforcement of minimum wholesale and retail milk prices)  Text

Kreider Dairy Farms, Inc. v. Veneman, 142 F.App’x 581 (3d Cir. 2005) (farmer was required to pay into the producer settlement fund as a handler)

Pac. Int’l Mktg., Inc. v. A & B Produce, Inc., No. CIV.A.03-3564, 2004 WL 1638133, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2004), aff’d, 462 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2006) (action for violation of provisions of PACA) Text

Cochran v. Veneman, 359 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2004), cert. granted, judgment vacated sub nom. Lovell v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 1058, 125 S. Ct. 2511, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1107 (2005), and cert. granted, judgment vacated sub nom. Johanns v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 1058, 125 S. Ct. 2512, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1107 (2005) (challenge to statute assessing milk producers with advertising costs)  Text

Cloverland-Green Spring Dairies, Inc. v. Pa. Milk Mktg. Bd., No. 1:CV-99-487, 2005 WL 6363889 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2005) (constitutionality of state milk marketing law)

Kreider Dairy Farms, Inc. v. Veneman, 2004 WL 1368806 (E.D. Pa. 2004) ( judgment against kosher milk producer trying to change his designation in a marketing order)

Cochran v. Veneman, 252 F.Supp.2d 126 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (challenge to statute assessing milk producers with advertising costs)  Text

Cloverland-Green Spring Dairies, Inc. v. Pa. Milk Marketing Bd., 298 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2002) remanded (challenging Pennsylvania’s enforcement of minimum wholesale and retail milk prices)  Text

Cloverland-Green Spring Dairies, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Milk Mktg. Bd., 138 F. Supp. 2d 593 (M.D. Pa. 2001) (challenging validity of certain provisions of Pennsylvania’s Milk Marketing Law (PMML), and certain minimum wholesale price orders) Text

Kreider Dairy Farms, Inc. v. Glickman, 190 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 1999) (action for status as a producer-handler for fee purposes) Text

Sani-Dairy, a Div. of Penn Traffic Co. v. Yeutter, 91 F.3d 15 (3d Cir. 1996), amended (Aug. 29, 1996) (challenging regulations governing the marketing of fluid milk) Text

Kreider Dairy Farms, Inc. v. Glickman, No. CIV.A. 95-6648, 1996 WL 472414, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 1996) (seeking judicial review pf the administration of a federal marketing order)

Sani-Dairy v. Yeutter, 935 F. Supp. 608 (W.D. Pa. 1995), aff’d sub nom. Sani-Dairy, a Div. of Penn Traffic Co. v. Yeutter, 91 F.3d 15 (3d Cir. 1996), amended (Aug. 29, 1996) (seeking refund of money paid pursuant to marketing orders) Text

Sani-Dairy, a Div. of Penn Traffic Co. v. Espy, 939 F. Supp. 410 (W.D. Pa. 1993), aff’d sub nom. Sani-Dairy, a Div. of Penn Traffic Co. v. Yeutter, 91 F.3d 15 (3d Cir. 1996), amended (Aug. 29, 1996) (challenging validity of regulations governing marketing of fluid milk in particular marketing area) Text

Sani-Dairy v. Yeutter, 782 F. Supp. 1060 (W.D. Pa. 1991) (challenging administrative regulations governing sale of milk) Text

Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Lyng, No. CIV. 88-2406 (CSF), 1989 WL 85062, at *1 (D.N.J. July 18, 1989) (enjoin the enforcement of the marketing order amendments)

Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Lyng, No. CIV. 88-2406 (CSF), 1989 WL 52697, at *1 (D.N.J. May 15, 1989)( judicial review of regulatory amendments adopted by the Secretary under the AMAA)

Cal-Fruit Suma Int’l v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 698 F. Supp. 80 (E.D. Pa. 1988), aff’d, 875 F.2d 309 (3d Cir. 1989) (challenging the marketing order applicable to imported seedless grapes) Text

Cal-Fruit Suma Int’l  v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. CIV.A. 87-1503, 1987 WL 12423, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 1, 1987) (prevent implementation of the Southeastern California Grape Marketing Order)

Lehigh Valley Farmers v. Block, 829 F.2d 409 (3d Cir. 1987) (seeking injunctive relief prohibiting Secretary of Agriculture from implementing regulations) Text

Lehigh Valley Farmers v. Block, 640 F. Supp. 1497 (E.D. Pa. 1986), aff’d, 829 F.2d 409 (3d Cir. 1987) (seeking injunctive relief prohibiting Secretary from implementing regulations) Text

Smyser v. Block, 760 F.2d 514 (3d Cir. 1985) (challenge validity of amendments to Secretary’s regional milk marketing order) Text

Smyser v. Block, 580 F. Supp. 1397 (M.D. Pa. 1984), rev’d, 760 F.2d 514 (3d Cir. 1985)(challenging the validity of two amendments to Secretary’s order regulating handling of milk)Text

Cross Bros. Meat Packers v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 1319 (E.D. Pa. 1982), rev’d sub nom. Cross Bros. Meat Packers v. United States, 705 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1983) (seeking damages for erroneous grading of meat) Text

United States v. United Dairy Farmers Co-op. Ass’n, 611 F.2d 488 (3d Cir. 1979) (enforcement of a milk marketing order) Text

Marchezak v. McKinley, 607 F.2d 37 (3d Cir. 1979) (action on enjoined enforcement of milk-marketing order) Text

Abbotts Dairies Div. of Fairmont Foods, Inc. v. Butz, 584 F.2d 12 (3d Cir. 1978) (recover damages from producer settlement fund for overpayments) Text

Jones v. Bergland, 456 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Pa. 1978) (challenging validity of milk marketing order) Text

Jones v. Bergland, 440 F. Supp. 485 (E.D. Pa. 1977) (preliminary injunction against implementation of amendment to milk marketing order) Text

Abbotts Dairies Div. of Fairmont Foods, Inc. v. Butz, 389 F. Supp. 1 (E.D. Pa. 1975) (review of order of the Secretary’s abolishing ‘bracketed pricing’ of milk) Text

United States v. Melenyzer, 390 F. Supp. 960 (W.D. Pa. 1975) (action to enforce milk order) Text

Inter-State Milk Producers’ Coop. v. Butz, 372 F. Supp. 1010 (E.D. Pa. 1974) Text

Abbotts Dairies Div. of Fairmont Foods, Inc. v. Hardin, 351 F. Supp. 561 (E.D. Pa. 1972) (seeking judicial review under Agricultural Adjustment Act of a milk-pricing order) Text

United Dairy Farmers Co-op. Ass’n v. Milk Control Comm’n of Com. of Pa., 335 F. Supp. 1008 (M.D. Pa.), aff’d sub nom. United Dairy Farmers Coop. Ass’n v. Milk Control Comm’n of Pennsylvania, 404 U.S. 930, 92 S. Ct. 280, 30 L. Ed. 2d 244 (1971) (action to prevent the implementation of sanctions) Text

United States v. Sunny Ayr Farms Dairy, Inc., 323 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Pa. 1971) (enforcement of milk marketing order) Text

United States v. Abbotts Dairies, Div. of Fairmont Foods Co., 315 F. Supp. 571 (E.D. Pa. 1970) (Action for enforcement of a milk marketing order)Text

Reddi-Wip Co. of Philadelphia v. Hardin, 315 F. Supp. 1117 (E.D. Pa. 1970) (review decision and order of the judicial officer of USDA) Text

United States v. Lehigh Valley Co-op. Farmers, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 140 (E.D. Pa. 1968) (action to compel handlers cooperative to pay sum into producers settlement fund)Text

Lewes Dairy, Inc. v. Freeman, 401 F.2d 308 (3d Cir. 1968) (Action to review validity of milk marketing order) Text

Freeman v. Canned Dairy Prod., Inc., 265 F. Supp. 95 (W.D. Pa. 1966) (compliance with subpoena) Text

Lewes Dairy, Inc. v. Freeman, 260 F. Supp. 921 (D. Del. 1966), rev’d, 401 F.2d 308 (3d Cir. 1968) (Action to review validity of milk marketing order)Text

Sterling Davis Dairy v. Freeman, 253 F. Supp. 80 (D.N.J. 1965) (action challenging administrative determinations made by the Secretary) Text

Freeman v. Fid.-Philadelphia Tr. Co., 248 F. Supp. 487 (E.D. Pa. 1965) (administrative subpoena enforcement) Text

Windham Creamery, Inc. v. Freeman, 350 F.2d 978 (3d Cir. 1965) (action challenging validity of milk marketing order) Text

United States v. Lewes Dairy, Inc., 337 F.2d 827 (3d Cir. 1964) (enforce compliance of marketing order) Text

Windham Creamery, Inc. v. Freeman, 230 F. Supp. 632 (D.N.J. 1964), aff’d, 350 F.2d 978 (3d Cir. 1965) (alleging a milk marketing order was illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory) Text

United States v. Ott, 214 F. Supp. 616 (D. Del. 1963)(action to compel compliance) Text

United States v. Lehigh Val. Co-op. Farmers, Inc., 287 F.2d 726 (3d Cir. 1961), rev’d, 370 U.S. 76, 82 S. Ct. 1168, 8 L. Ed. 2d 345 (1962) (action on non-pool handlers to make compensatory payments ) Text

Ideal Farms, Inc. v. Benson, 288 F.2d 608 (3d Cir. 1961) (review the section of a milk marketing order) Text

United States v. Lehigh Val. Co-op. Farmers, 183 F. Supp. 80 (E.D. Pa. 1960), rev’d sub nom. United States v. Lehigh Val. Co-op. Farmers, Inc., 287 F.2d 726 (3d Cir. 1961), rev’d, 370 U.S. 76, 82 S. Ct. 1168, 8 L. Ed. 2d 345 (1962) (actions involving validity of milk order amendment) Text

Ideal Farms, Inc. v. Benson, 181 F. Supp. 62 (D.N.J. 1960), aff’d, 288 F.2d 608 (3d Cir. 1961) (Action contesting milk marketing order)Text

Newark Milk & Cream Co. v. Benson, 179 F. Supp. 182 (D.N.J. 1959), aff’d, 287 F.2d 681 (3d Cir. 1961) (action to recover skim milk differential ) Text

United States v. Lehigh Val. Co-op. Farmers, 183 F. Supp. 80 (E.D. Pa. 1960), rev’d sub nom. United States v. Lehigh Val. Co-op. Farmers, Inc., 287 F.2d 726 (3d Cir. 1961), rev’d, 370 U.S. 76, 82 S. Ct. 1168, 8 L. Ed. 2d 345 (1962) (actions involving validity of milk order amendment) Text

United States v. Ideal Farms, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 28 (D.N.J.), aff’d, 262 F.2d 334 (3d Cir. 1958) (Action to compel compliance with and to enjoin violation of a Milk Marketing Order)Text

United States v. Ideal Farms, Inc., 262 F.2d 334 (3d Cir. 1958) (compel compliance of marketing order) Text

Blattner v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 628 (E.D. Pa.), aff’d, 223 F.2d 468 (3d Cir. 1955) (action to enjoin enforcement of ag adjustment act) Text

Alexander Mktg. Co. v. Harrisburg Daily Mkt., 9 F.R.D. 248 (M.D. Pa. 1949) (appeal for reparation order made by secretary of agriculture) Text

Titusville Dairy Prod. Co. v. Brannan, 176 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1949) (injunction for milk marketing order) Text

United States v. Titusville Dairy Prod. Co., 63 F. Supp. 104 (W.D. Pa. 1945) (compliance with marketing order) Text

Wawa Dairy Farms v. Wickard, 149 F.2d 860 (3d Cir. 1945) (review of plaintiff’s exemption) Text

Wawa Dairy Farms v. Wickard, 56 F. Supp. 67 (E.D. Pa. 1944), aff’d, 149 F.2d 860 (3d Cir. 1945) (review a ruling)Text

---

FOURTH CIRCUIT

Lanco Dairy Farms Coop. v. Sec’y of Agric., 572 F.Supp.2d 633 (D. Md. 2008) (review of federal milk marketing order)  Text

Inter-State Milk Producers’ Co-op., Inc. v. St. Clair, 314 F. Supp. 108 (D. Md. 1970) (injunction against milk marketing order) Text

United States v. Farm Dairy Co-op., Inc., 298 F. Supp. 769 (N.D.W. Va. 1969) (marketing order compliance)

Mills v. Freeman, 294 F. Supp. 119 (D. Md. 1968) (recovery of payments) Text

Se. Milk Sales Ass’n, Inc. v. Swaringen, 290 F. Supp. 292 (M.D.N.C. 1968) (seeking to enjoin enforcement of portions of marketing order of state milk commission) Text

United States v. Yadkin Valley Dairy Coop., Inc., 315 F.2d 867 (4th Cir. 1963) (enforcing compliance with a federal milk marketing order) Text

Paul v. United States, 222 F. Supp. 102 (E.D.N.C. 1963)(farm marketing quota penalties) Text

United States v. Mills, 315 F.2d 828 (4th Cir. 1963) (validity of order) Text

Nat’l Dairy Prod. Corp. v. Greene, 210 F. Supp. 798 (D. Md. 1962) (Action for declaratory judgment and injunction against market administrator) Text

Willow Farms Dairy, Inc. v. Freeman, 206 F. Supp. 239 (D. Md. 1962), rev’d sub nom. United States v. Mills, 315 F.2d 828 (4th Cir. 1963) (challenging validity of a milk marketing order) Text

United States v. Yadkin Val. Dairy Co-op., Inc., 209 F. Supp. 634 (M.D.N.C. 1962), aff’d sub nom. United States v. Yadkin Valley Dairy Coop., Inc., 315 F.2d 867 (4th Cir. 1963) (Action for mandatory injunction commanding milk handler to comply) Text

United States v. Whittle, 287 F.2d 638 (4th Cir. 1961) (recover penalties for exceeding the tobacco marketing quota) Text

Willow Farms Dairy, Inc. v. Benson, 276 F.2d 856 (4th Cir. 1960) (seeking rulings review of Secretary with regard to a milk marketing order) Text

Willow Farms Dairy, Inc. v. Benson, 181 F. Supp. 798 (D. Md.), aff’d, 276 F.2d 856 (4th Cir. 1960) (validity of marketing order) Text

United States v. Mills, 185 F. Supp. 709 (D. Md. 1960) (compliance with marketing order)

United States v. Mills, 187 F. Supp. 314 (D. Md. 1960) (compliance with milk marketing order) Text

Stroud v. Benson, 155 F. Supp. 482 (E.D.N.C. 1957), vacated, 254 F.2d 448 (4th Cir. 1958) (injunction restraining enforcement of order) Text

United States v. Morelock, 124 F. Supp. 932 (D. Md. 1954) (action to restrain farmers from interfering with inspections) Text

LeRoy Dyal Co. v. Allen, 161 F.2d 152 (4th Cir. 1947) (approval of a reparation order) Text

 

---

FIFTH CIRCUIT

Gore, Inc. v. Glickman, 137 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 1998) (review of decision)Text

Gore, Inc. v. Espy, 87 F.3d 767 (5th Cir. 1996) (review of decision dealing with milk distribution) Text

Suntex Dairy v. Block, 666 F.2d 158 (5th Cir. 1982) (action challenging an order that consolidated marketing areas) Text

Suntex Dairy v. Bergland, 591 F.2d 1063 (5th Cir. 1979) (validity of marketing order) Text

In re Midwest Milk Monopolization Litig., 398 F. Supp. 676 (J.P.M.L. 1975) (violation of milk marketing order) Text

Consol.-Tomoka Land Co. v. Butz, 498 F.2d 1208 (5th Cir. 1974) (challenging validity of marketing order) Text

Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets v. Louisiana Milk Comm’n, 365 F. Supp. 1144 (M.D. La. 1973), aff’d, 416 U.S. 922, 94 S. Ct. 1920, 40 L. Ed. 2d 279 (1974), and aff’d, 416 U.S. 922, 94 S. Ct. 1920, 40 L. Ed. 2d 279 (1974) (challenging constitutionality of marketing order) Text

Chiglades Farm, Ltd. v. Butz, 485 F.2d 1125 (5th Cir. 1973) (constitutionality of marketing order) Text

Mktg. Assistance Plan, Inc. v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 338 F. Supp. 1019 (S.D. Tex. 1972) (Antitrust action between milk cooperatives) Text

Harry H. Price & Sons, Inc. v. Hardin, 425 F.2d 1137 (5th Cir. 1970) (challenge validity of administrative orders or regulations allegedly restricting importation of tomatoes) Text

I. C. C. v. Sw. Mktg. Ass’n, 315 F. Supp. 805 (N.D. Tex. 1970) (enjoin cooperative from transporting in interstate commerce) Text

Harry H. Price & Sons, Inc. v. Hardin, 425 F.2d 1137 (5th Cir. 1970) (challenge validity of administrative orders or regulations allegedly restricting importation of tomatoes)Text

Vaughn-Griffin Packing Co. v. Hardin, 423 F.2d 1094 (5th Cir. 1970) (modification of marketing order) Text

Harry H. Price & Son, Inc. v. Hardin, 299 F. Supp. 557 (N.D. Tex. 1969), vacated sub nom. Harry H. Price & Sons, Inc. v. Hardin, 425 F.2d 1137 (5th Cir. 1970) (enforcement of regulations on shipment of tomatoes) Text

F.H. Vahlsing, Inc., Tex. v. United States, 367 F.2d 577 (5th Cir. 1966) (action to remedy violation of Agricultural Adjustment Act) Text

Pearce v. Freeman, 238 F. Supp. 947 (E.D. La. 1965) (enjoin enforcement of milk marketing order) Text

Freeman v. Hygeia Dairy Co., 326 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1964) (challenging validity of milk marketing order) Text

Allen v. David, 334 F.2d 592 (5th Cir. 1964) (action to recall marketing quota) Text

Freeman v. Vance, 325 F.2d 663 (5th Cir. 1963) (validity of an amendment to a milk marketing order was contested) Text

Freeman v. Vance, 319 F.2d 841 (5th Cir. 1963) (validity of amendment to milk marketing order) Text

United States v. Mosby, (S.D. Miss. 1963) (enforcement of order) Text

United States v. Sanitary Dairy Prod., Inc., 211 F. Supp. 185 (W.D. La. 1962) (compel the milk handler to comply with a marketing order)Text

Sanitary Dairy Prod., Inc. v. Cook, 211 F. Supp. 183 (W.D. La. 1962) (allotment of funds) Text

Hygeia Dairy Co. v. Freeman, 197 F. Supp. 876 (S.D. Tex. 1961), rev’d, 326 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1964) (seeking to have an amended federal milk marketing order set aside) Text

Best Foods v. United States, 147 F. Supp. 749 (Cust. Ct. 1956) (fee refund) Text

Bowers v. United States, 226 F.2d 424 (5th Cir. 1955) (penalties for peanut grower under ag adjustment act) Text

El Campo Rice Mill Co v. Comm’r, 121 F.2d 303 (5th Cir. 1941) (action for refund of processing tax) Text

Whittenburg v. United States, 100 F.2d 520 (5th Cir. 1938) (violation of AMAA) Text

United States v. Whittenberg, 21 F. Supp. 713 (S.D. Tex.), aff’d sub nom. Whittenburg v. United States, 100 F.2d 520 (5th Cir. 1938) (violation of AMAA) Text

Speh v. Bullard, 90 F.2d 227 (5th Cir. 1937) (termination of a licensing agreement) Text

---

SIXTH CIRCUIT

Burnette Foods, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 920 F.3d 461 (6th Cir. 2019) (violation of provision of Tart Cherry Order)Text

Burnette Foods, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Agric., No. 1:16-CV-21, 2016 WL 4708629, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2016) (review of a USDA judgment)Text

DeVries Dairy, LLC v. White Eagle Co-op. Ass’n, 25 F. Supp. 3d 1039 (N.D. Ohio 2014)(duty to mitigate damages, premium reduction) Text

Superior Dairy, Inc. v. Vilsack, No. 5:11CV1979, 2012 WL 275199 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2012)(regulations and rule-making related to Federal Milk Marketing Orders) Text

Superior Dairy, Inc. v. Vilsack, No. 5:11CV1979, 2011 WL 4565792 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2011)(regulations and rule-making related to Federal Milk Marketing Orders) Text

DeVries Dairy, LLC v. White Eagle Co-op. Ass’n, No. 3:09CV207, 2011 WL 3349067 (N.D. Ohio July 29, 2011)(breach of contract regarding premiums, negligent misrepresentation)Text

In re Se. Milk Antitrust Litig., 801 F. Supp. 2d 705 (E.D. Tenn. 2011)(claim to foreclose competition and fix prices) Text

In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-MD-1000, 2010 WL 3083806 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 4, 2010) (Sherman Act antitrust action against milk coop)

In re Se. Milk Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1899, No. 2:08-MD-1000, 2009 WL 3747130 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 3, 2009) (violations of antitrust law; breach of protective order)

In re Se. Milk Antitrust Litig., 2008 WL 2368212 (E.D. Tenn. 2008) (antitrust suit against a milk marketing agency)

In re Se. Milk Antitrust Litig., 2008 WL 2117159 (E.D. Tenn. 2008) (antitrust suit against a milk marketing agency)

United States ex rel. Fellhoelter v. Valley Milk Products, L.L.C., 617 F.Supp.2d 723 (E.D. Tenn. 2008) (alleged fraudulent milk payment schemes)  Text

Bridgewater Dairy, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 2007 WL 634059 (N.D. Ohio 2007) (raising make allowances for milk production)

Fullenkamp v. Veneman, 383 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2004) (action against the federal Milk Income Loss Contract Program)  Text

Nature’s Dairy v. Glickman, 173 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 1999) (constitutionality of Dairy Production Stabilization Act)

United Foods, Inc. v. United States, 197 F.3d 221 (6th Cir. 1999), aff’d, 533 U.S. 405, 121 S. Ct. 2334, 150 L. Ed. 2d 438 (2001) (First Amendment challenged for compelled commercial speech) Text

Farmland Dairies, Inc. v. Espy, 65 F.3d 168 (6th Cir. 1995) (challenging validity of milk marketing order)

Lansing Dairy, Inc. v. Espy, 39 F.3d 1339 (6th Cir. 1994) (challenging amendments to milk marketing order) Text

Farmers Union Milk Mktg. Co-Op. v. Madigan, No. 1:89-CV-281, 1992 WL 71372, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 1992), vacated sub nom. Lansing Dairy, Inc. v. Espy, 39 F.3d 1339 (6th Cir. 1994) (validity and authority of marketing order)

Nat’l Farmers’ Org., Inc. v. Yeutter, 925 F.2d 1464 (6th Cir. 1991) (challenging the validity of an emergency amendment to a marketing order)

S. Milk Sales, Inc. v. Martin, 924 F.2d 98 (6th Cir. 1991) (seeking preliminary injunction enjoining persons from interfering with milk marketing agreements between cooperative and its members) Text

Farmers Union Milk Mktg. Co-op v. Yeutter, 930 F.2d 466 (6th Cir. 1991) (challenging amendment to milk marketing order) Text

Newark Gardens, Inc. v. Michigan Potato Indus. Comm’n, 847 F.2d 1201 (6th Cir. 1988) (state law preempted by federal law) Text

Defiance Milk Prod. Co., A Div. of Diehl v. Lyng, 857 F.2d 1065 (6th Cir. 1988) (challenging validity of temporary amendment to milk marketing order) Text

In re Flowers, Deverell & Crawford, 66 B.R. 607 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1986) (payment priority in bankruptcy) Text

United States v. Dairymen, Inc., No. C 7634 A, 1983 WL 1880, at *1 (W.D. Ky. June 9, 1983), aff’d, 758 F.2d 654 (6th Cir. 1985) (alleging anti-trust action in relation to federal milk marketing order)

L. & L. Howell, Inc. v. Cincinnati Co-op. Milk Sales Ass’n, 716 F.2d 903 (6th Cir. 1983) (anti-trust liability)

Butz v. Lawson Milk Co., Div. Consol. Foods Corp., 386 F. Supp. 227 (N.D. Ohio 1974) (action for violations of Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 ) Text

Phillips v. Simpson, 353 F. Supp. 1139 (E.D. Ky. 1973)( action for the reconstitution and division of original “farm”) Text

Lawson Milk Co. v. Freeman, 358 F.2d 647 (6th Cir. 1966) (proceeding for refund of sums paid by milk handler) Text

Lawson Milk Co. v. Benson, 187 F. Supp. 66 (N.D. Ohio 1960), vacated sub nom. Lawson Milk Co. v. Freeman, 305 F.2d 376 (6th Cir. 1962) (review ruling of judicial officer) Text

United States v. Tapor-Ideal Dairy Co., 283 F.2d 869 (6th Cir. 1960) (dispute over account payment) Text

United States v. Tapor-Ideal Dairy Co., 175 F. Supp. 678 (N.D. Ohio 1959), aff’d, 283 F.2d 869 (6th Cir. 1960) (compel compliance with marketing order) Text

Universal Milk Bottle Serv. v. United States, 188 F.2d 959, 64 Ohio Law Abs. 186 (6th Cir. 1951) (conspiracy to fix distributors’ prices)Text

United States v. Universal Milk Bottle Serv., 85 F. Supp. 622, 56 Ohio Law Abs. 225 (S.D. Ohio 1949), aff’d, 188 F.2d 959, 64 Ohio Law Abs. 186 (6th Cir. 1951) (conspiracy to fix distributors’ prices) Text

Gudgel v. Iverson, 87 F. Supp. 834 (W.D. Ky. 1949) (enforcement of marketing order) Text

Balazs v. Brannan, 87 F. Supp. 119 (N.D. Ohio 1949) (review of decision to modify or invalidate marketing order) Text

Avon Dairy Co. v. Eisaman, 69 F. Supp. 500, 501 (N.D. Ohio 1946) (subject matter jurisdiction)

Fraser v. United States, 145 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1944) (action to determine which party was required to pay penalties)Text

Crull v. Wickard, 137 F.2d 406 (6th Cir. 1943) (review a ruling) Text

United States v. French Bauer, Inc., 48 F. Supp. 260 (S.D. Ohio 1942) (violation of anti-trust laws) Text

Crull v. Wickard, 40 F. Supp. 606 (W.D. Ky. 1941) (review an adverse ruling) Text

United States v. Krechting, 26 F. Supp. 266 (S.D. Ohio 1939) (enforce compliance with milk marketing order) Text

---

SEVENTH CIRCUIT

First Impressions Salon, Inc. v. Nat’l Milk Producers Fed’n, 214 F. Supp. 3d 723 (S.D. Ill. 2016) (antitrust action against dairy cooperatives) Text

White Eagle Coop Ass’n v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2009) (challenging federal milk marketing order)  Text

White Eagle Co-op Assoc. v. Johanns, 508 F. Supp. 2d 664 (N.D. Ind. 2007), aff’d sub nom. White Eagle Co-op. Ass’n v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2009) (challenging USDA milk marketing order) Text

White Eagle Coop. Ass’n v. Johanns, No. 3:05-CV-620 AS, 2006 WL 8453009, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 7, 2006) (challenging validity of marketing order)

White Eagle Co-op. Ass’n v. Johanns, 396 F. Supp. 2d 954 (N.D. Ind. 2005) (alleging USDA issued regulation without following proper administrative procedures) Text

Lamers Dairy, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 379 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 2004) (opting out of milk marketing orders)  Text

Alto Dairy v. Veneman, 336 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2003) (challenge to milk marketing order)  Text

Dean Foods Co. v. Tracy, 990 F. Supp. 646 (W.D. Wis. 1997), on reconsideration sub nom. Dean Foods Co. v. Brancel, 22 F. Supp. 2d 931 (W.D. Wis. 1998), aff’d, 187 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 1999) (action for declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging constitutionality of milk regulations) Text

Crave v. Tracy, 955 F. Supp. 1047 (E.D. Wis. 1996) (challenging constitutionality of anti-price discrimination statutes)Text

Cty. Line Cheese Co. v. Lyng, 823 F.2d 1127 (7th Cir. 1987) (challenged validity of administrative regulations governing sale of milk)Text

Cty. Line Cheese Co. v. Block, No. 85 C 1811, 1986 WL 7142, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 19, 1986) (seeking review of a final adjudicatory decision)

Borden, Inc. v. Butz, 544 F.2d 312 (7th Cir. 1976) (review in the district court of certain milk marketing orders) Text

United States v. Larson, 68 F.R.D. 463 (E.D. Wis. 1975) (action to require a cherry grower to comply with the provisions of a marketing order)

United States v. Lamars Dairy, Inc., 500 F.2d 84 (7th Cir. 1974) (action to enforce federal milk order) Text 

State of Ill. v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 436 (N.D. Ill. 1972) (action seeking injuctive relief challenging monopolization of milk sales in Chicago federal milk marketing areas) Text

Pure Milk Prod. Co-op. v. Nat’l Farmers Org., 332 F. Supp. 866 (E.D. Wis. 1971) (enjoining defendants from interfering with milk marketing contracts) Text

Uelman v. Freeman, 267 F. Supp. 842 (E.D. Wis.), aff’d sub nom. Uelmen v. Freeman, 388 F.2d 308 (7th Cir. 1967) (action enjoining the Secretary from applying certain section of milk marketing order) Text

Uelmen v. Freeman, 388 F.2d 308 (7th Cir. 1967) (prevent the continuation of an marketing order) Text

Willow Farm Prod. Co. v. Brannan, 90 F. Supp. 195 (N.D. Ill. 1950) (action for relief from the interpretation)Text

United States v. Turner Dairy Co., 166 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1948) (enforce compliance with milk marketing order)Text

United States v. Turner Dairy Co., 162 F.2d 425 (7th Cir. 1947) (compel compliance) Text

Ogden Dairy Co. v. Wickard, 157 F.2d 445 (7th Cir. 1946) (review an order directing plaintiff to pay) Text

Am. Co-op. Serum Ass’n v. Anchor Serum Co., 153 F.2d 907 (7th Cir. 1946) (recover triple damages for alleged violations of the Clayton Act )Text

Porter v. Consol. Badger Co-op., 157 F.2d 835 (7th Cir. 1946) (treble damages for the sale of condensed skim milk above the ceiling fixed price) Text

C.J. Wieland & Son Dairy Prod. Co. v. Wickard, 68 F. Supp. 93 (E.D. Wis. 1946) (review ruling by secretary regulating the handling of milk in Chicago) Text

United States v. Ruzicka, 152 F.2d 167 (7th Cir. 1945), rev’d, 329 U.S. 287, 67 S. Ct. 207, 91 L. Ed. 290 (1946) (collect payment for compliance with milk order) Text

United States v. Wagner Milk Prod., 61 F. Supp. 635 (N.D. Ill. 1945) (enforce milk handling order) Text

Barron Coop. Creamery v. Wickard, 140 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1944) (review a decision for pricing) Text

United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 127 F.2d 907 (7th Cir. 1942) (enforce specifically the provisions of an order) Text

United States v. Ridgeland Creamery Co., 47 F. Supp. 145 (W.D. Wis. 1942) (compel compliance with marketing order) Text

United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 123 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1941), rev’d, 315 U.S. 110, 62 S. Ct. 523, 86 L. Ed. 726 (1942) (compliance with the AMAA) Text

Beranek v. Wallace, 25 F. Supp. 841 (N.D. Ind. 1939) (an injunction restraining defendants from filing any prosecutions or proceedings under and enforcing marketing order)Text

United States v. Borden Co., 28 F. Supp. 177 (N.D. Ill.), rev’d, 308 U.S. 188, 60 S. Ct. 182, 84 L. Ed. 181 (1939) (engaging in an unlawful combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate commerce in fluid milk in violation) Text

---

EIGHTH CIRCUIT

In re Aurora Diary Corp. Organic Milk Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 621 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2010) (federal preemption of state consumer protection law)  Text

In re Milk Prod. Antitrust Litig., 195 F.3d 430 (8th Cir. 1999) (alleging that milk processors conspired to fix their wholesale prices) Text

Minnesota Milk Producers Ass’n v. Glickman, 153 F.3d 632 (8th Cir. 1998) (challenging various aspects of federal milk pricing program)Text

Minnesota Milk Producers v. Glickman, 981 F. Supp. 1224 (D. Minn. 1997), rev’d sub nom. Minnesota Milk Producers Ass’n v. Glickman, 153 F.3d 632 (8th Cir. 1998) (challenging various aspects of federal milk pricing program) Text

Minnesota Milk Producers Ass’n v. Yeutter, 851 F. Supp. 1389 (D. Minn. 1994) (seeking declaration that marketing order is in violation of AMAA) Text

Allen v. State of Minn., 867 F. Supp. 853 (D. Minn. 1994) (challenge constitutionality of Minnesota statutes regarding purchase and sale of milk) Text

Marigold Foods, Inc. v. Redalen, 834 F. Supp. 1163 (D. Minn. 1993) (challenging Minnesota premium assessed against milk wholesalers) Text

Marigold Foods, Inc. v. Redalen, 809 F. Supp. 714 (D. Minn. 1992) (challenging state law that sets minimum prices) Text

Minnesota Milk Producers Ass’n v. Madigan, 956 F.2d 816 (8th Cir. 1992) (seeking to have enjoined and declared invalid certain provisions of milk-marketing orders) Text

Ripplemeyer v. Nat’l Grape Co-op. Ass’n, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 1439 (W.D. Ark. 1992) (alleging violations of Sherman Anti-Trust Act and breach of contract) Text

Nat’l Farmers’ Org., Inc. v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 850 F.2d 1286 (8th Cir. 1988), amended, 878 F.2d 1118 (8th Cir. 1989) (antitrust action brought against farmers organization and counterclaims for antitrust against dairy cooperatives) Text

Alexander v. Nat’l Farmers’ Org., 614 F. Supp. 745 (W.D. Mo. 1985), aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Nat’l Farmers’ Org., Inc. v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 850 F.2d 1286 (8th Cir. 1988), amended, 878 F.2d 1118 (8th Cir. 1989) (antitrust action brought against farmers organization and counterclaims for antitrust against dairy cooperatives) Text

Walmsley v. Block, 719 F.2d 1414 (8th Cir. 1983) (seeking to declare invalid final rule) Text

In re Midwest Milk Monopolization Litig., 510 F. Supp. 381 (W.D. Mo. 1981), aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Alexander v. Nat’l Farmers Org., 687 F.2d 1173 (8th Cir. 1982) (alleging violations of federal antitrust laws) Text

United States v. Mid-Am. Dairymen, Inc., No. 73 CV 681-W-1, 1977 WL 1425, at *2 (W.D. Mo. May 17, 1977) (final judgement on producer’s operations)

United States v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 394 F. Supp. 29 (W.D. Mo. 1975), aff’d, 534 F.2d 113 (8th Cir. 1976) (antitrust action) Text

Marigold Foods, Inc. v. Butz, 493 F.2d 60 (8th Cir. 1974) (classification of milk for marketing purposes) Text

United States v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., No. 74 CV 80-W-1, 1974 WL 908, at *2 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 13, 1974) (enjoining defendant front engaging in milk industry)

In re Midwest Milk Monopolization Litig., 380 F. Supp. 880 (W.D. Mo. 1974) (alleged monopolization and restraints of trade in milk industry) Text

In re Midwest Milk Monopolization Litig., 60 F.R.D. 12 (W.D. Mo. 1973) (production of documents)

George Benz & Sons v. Hardin, 342 F. Supp. 88 (D. Minn. 1972) (action to review decision of Secretary of Agriculture amending milk marketing order by enlarging its geographical area) Text

Sunny Hill Farms Dairy Co. v. Hardin, 446 F.2d 1124 (8th Cir. 1971) (challenging legality of location differential in milk marketing order) Text

Sunny Hill Farms Dairy Co. v. Freeman, 307 F. Supp. 392 (E.D. Mo. 1969), rev’d sub nom. Sunny Hill Farms Dairy Co. v. Hardin, 446 F.2d 1124 (8th Cir. 1971) (challenging legality of location differential in milk marketing order) Text

United States v. Sunny Hill Farms Dairy Co., 258 F. Supp. 94 (E.D. Mo. 1966) (enforce compliance with order regulating handling of milk) Text

United States v. Beatrice Foods Co., 224 F. Supp. 353 (W.D. Mo. 1963) (violation of agricultural marketing orders) Text

Bailey Farm Dairy Co. v. Anderson, 157 F.2d 87 (8th Cir. 1946) (review a milk order) Text

Bailey Farm Dairy Co. v. Jones, 61 F. Supp. 209 (E.D. Mo. 1945), aff’d sub nom. Bailey Farm Dairy Co. v. Anderson, 157 F.2d 87 (8th Cir. 1946) (to review a milk order) Text

Chapman v. United States, 139 F.2d 327 (8th Cir. 1943) (compel to comply with marketing order) Text

United States v. Beck, 36 F. Supp. 307 (N.D. Iowa 1941) (to enforce the provisions of an order regulating the handling of milk) Text

Roloff v. Perdue, 33 F. Supp. 513 (N.D. Iowa 1940) (determining rights under Milk Order) Text

Roloff v. Perdue, 31 F. Supp. 739 (N.D. Iowa 1939) (determining definitions of “producers” and “handlers”) Text

---

NINTH CIRCUIT

Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc., 380 F. Supp. 3d 998 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (seeking monetary and injunctive relief under state law arising from the misreporting of pricing data) Text

Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc., 328 F.R.D. 393 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (seeking monetary and injunctive relief under state law arising from the misreporting of pricing data)

Edwards v. Nat’l Milk Producers Fed’n, No. C 11-04766 JSW, 2014 WL 4643639 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014)(motion for class certification) Text

Edwards v. California Dairies, Inc., No. 1:14-MC-00007-SAB, 2014 WL 2465934 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2014) reconsideration denied, No. 1:14-MC-00007-SAB, 2014 WL 3420991 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2014)(motion to compel) Text

Horne v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 750 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2014) cert. granted sub nom. Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 135 S. Ct. 1039, 190 L. Ed. 2d 907 (2015) and  rev’d sub nom. Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., No. 14-275, 2015 WL 2473384 (U.S. June 22, 2015)(standing, constitutional taking) Text

Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc., 978 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (E.D. Cal. 2013)(USDA not an indispensable party, negligent mispresentation) Text

Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc., 688 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2012)(filed rate doctrine)

Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc., 705 F.3d 856 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 116, 187 L. Ed. 2d 35 (2013)(class action regarding misreporting of pricing data) Text

Horne v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 673 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2012) rev’d sub nom. Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 133 S. Ct. 2053, 186 L. Ed. 2d 69 (2013)(whether “handlers”) Text

Horne v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 494 F. App’x 774 (9th Cir. 2012)(petition to make changes to rulemaking) Text

Hettinga v. Vilsack, 428 F. App’x 732 (9th Cir. 2011) Text

Carlin v. Dairy Am., Inc., — F.Supp.2d —, 2010 WL 529436 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (misreporting of the raw milk price)

Horne v. U.S. Dep’t of Agr., 395 F. App’x 486 (9th Cir. 2010) (seeking judicial review of dismissal of administrative petition)

Amalgamated Sugar Co. v. Vilsack, 563 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2009) (challenging transfer of marketing allocation)  Text

Horne v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. CV-F-08-1549LJOSMS, 2009 WL 4895362, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2009), aff’d, 673 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2012) ( alleging violations of various provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act)

Amalgamated Sugar Co. v. Vilsack, 555 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2009) (challenging transfer of marketing allocation)  Text

Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm’n, 546 F.Supp.2d 859 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (growers forced to pay for advertising)   Text

Lion Raisins, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 2008 WL 783337 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (appealing judgment from challenging inspections of fruit)

United States v. Horne, 2007 WL 2238207 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (violation of marketing order)

Paramount Land Co. LP v. Cal. Pistachio Comm’n, 491 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2007) (challenge to mandatory advertising and promotion expenses) Text

Am. Honey Producers Ass’n, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 2007 WL 1345467 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (challenging mandatory advertising as compelled speech)

Lion Raisins, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 2005 WL 2704879 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (fraudulent worksheets could not be disclosed)

Lion Bros. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 2005 WL 2089809 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (alleged failure to inspect fruit controlled by a marketing order)

Hillside Dairy, Inc. v. Kawamura, 317 F.Supp.2d 1194 (E.D. Cal. 2004) (challenge to CA’s milk marketing plan)  Text

In re Wa. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 257 F.Supp.2d 1290 (E.D. Wash. 2003) (constitutional challenge to the collection of fee for advertising)   Text

In re Wa. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 257 F.Supp.2d 1274 (E.D. Wash. 2003) (claim that generic advertising is compelled speech)  Text

Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm’n., 318 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2003) (challenging mandatory advertising as compelled speech)   Text

United Dairymen of Ariz. v. Veneman, 279 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2002) (challenging producer-handler exemption in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act)  Text

Balice v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 203 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2000) (various violations of almond marketing order) Text

Midway Farms v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 188 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 1999) (review of decision for lack of standing) Text

Cal-Almond Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agr., 192 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 1999) (judicial review of First Amendment challenge) Text

Gallo Cattle Co. v. California Milk Advisory Bd., 185 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 1999) (challenging compulsory assessments by California Milk Advisory Board) Text

Gallo Cattle Co. v. California Milk Advisory Bd., 167 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir.), opinion withdrawn and superseded, 185 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 1999) (state law violated first amendment) Text

U.S. ex rel., Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 1998) (alleging violations of prorate restrictions and reporting requirements in citrus marketing orders) Text

Gallo Cattle Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 159 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (challenging requirement that it pay assessments) Text

United States v. Cal-Almond Inc., 102 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1996) (enforcement action against handlers for assessments ) Text

Cal-Almond, Inc. v. Dep’t of Agric., 67 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. granted, judgment vacated, 521 U.S. 1113, 117 S. Ct. 2501, 138 L. Ed. 2d 1007 (1997) (challenged provisions of California Almond Marketing Order) Text

Wileman Bros. & Elliott v. Espy, 58 F.3d 1367 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended on denial of reh’g (Sept. 18, 1995), as amended (Oct. 3, 1995), rev’d sub nom. Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliott, 521 U.S. 457, 117 S. Ct. 2130, 138 L. Ed. 2d 585 (1997) (challenged provisions of Secretary of Agriculture’s marketing orders) Text

U.S. ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Sunland Packing House Co., 912 F. Supp. 1325 (E.D. Cal. 1995), aff’d sub nom. U.S. ex rel., Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 1998) (alleging violations of prorate restrictions and reporting requirements in citrus marketing orders)Text

United States v. Sunny Cove Citrus Ass’n, 854 F. Supp. 669 (E.D. Cal. 1994) (challenging marketing orders governing California naval and Valencia orange) Text

United States v. Sequoia Orange Co., No. CV-F-83-510 OWW, 1994 WL 903688, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 1994), aff’d sub nom. United States v. Sequoia Orange Co., 185 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 1999) (violation of marketing orders and volume restriction regulations)

Cal-Almond, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 14 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 1993) (challenged provisions of California almond marketing order) Text

United States v. Exeter Orange Co., 958 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1992) (refusal to comply with federal marketing orders governing navel oranges)

Sequoia Orange Co. v. Yeutter, 973 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1992), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 985 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1993) (action challenging decision of Secretary of Agriculture changing procedure for orange growers to vote on amendments to marketing order) Text

Cal-Almond, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 960 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1992) (challenged USDA’s failure to provide a list of California almond growers eligible to vote in referendum on continuation of marketing order)Text

Browns Lake Ranch v. Yeutter, 981 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1992) (challenging the imposition of a reserve on 35 percent of the almonds)

U.S. ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Oxnard Lemon Co., No. CV-F-91-194 OWW, 1992 WL 795477, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 1992) (action under the False Claims Act)

Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479 (9th Cir. 1992) (challenging method by which Secretary of Agriculture set weekly volume restrictions for marketing of navel oranges) Text

Farmers All. for Improved Regulation, “”FAIR” v. Madigan, 977 F.2d 588 (9th Cir. 1992) (challenging a USDA final marketing order that placed volume restrictions on the domestic marketing of navel oranges)

Cecelia Packing Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric./Agric. Mktg. Serv., No. CV-F-91-233 OWW, 1994 WL 69401, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 1992), aff’d, 10 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1993) (alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments)

Cal-Almond, Inc. v. Yeutter, 756 F. Supp. 1351 (E.D. Cal. 1991) (challenging validity of regulations requiring it to withhold reserve crop) Text

Wileman Bros. & Elliott v. Giannini, 909 F.2d 332 (9th Cir. 1990) (alleging that defendants had substituted heightened standards for their “maturity”)Text

Wileman Bros. & Elliott v. Yeutter, 917 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1990) (subject matter jurisdiction)

Saulsbury Orchards & Almond Processing, Inc. v. Yeutter, 917 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1990)(challenge constitutionality of marketing order by an almond farmer) Text

United States v. Saulsbury Orchards, 857 F.2d 1479 (9th Cir. 1988) (enforcement of an advertising assessment)

United States v. Riverbend Farms, Inc., 847 F.2d 553 (9th Cir. 1988)( ordering civil forfeiture for violation of Lemon Marketing Order) Text

Berning v. Gooding, 820 F.2d 1550 (9th Cir. 1987) (alleging violation of antitrust laws and tortious interference with prospective advantage) Text

Berning v. Gooding, 643 F. Supp. 26 (D. Or. 1985), aff’d, 820 F.2d 1550 (9th Cir. 1987) (alleging violation of antitrust laws and tortious interference with prospective advantage)Text

Friends of Hop Mktg. Order v. Block, 753 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1985) (preliminary injunction sought in order to halt rule-making proceedings required for amendment of marketing order) Text

Pescosolido v. Block, 765 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1985) (seeking to compel Secretary of Agriculture to terminate federal marketing order) Text

Navel Orange Admin. Comm. v. Exeter Orange Co., 722 F.2d 449 (9th Cir. 1983) (action to pay assessments as required under the AMAA) Text

Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. F.T.C., 464 F. Supp. 302 (C.D. Cal. 1979) (injunctive relief alleging federal trade commission operated in excess of their statutory jurisdiction) Text

Prune Bargaining Ass’n v. Butz, 444 F. Supp. 785 (N.D. Cal. 1975), aff’d sub nom. Prune Bargaining Ass’n v. Bergland, 571 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1978) (enforcing certain regulations and a marketing order dealing with reserve prune pooling procedures) Text

Curtis v. United States, No. 9662, 1972 WL 396, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 15, 1972) (refund of federal income taxes paid on capital gains)

Rasmussen v. Hardin, 461 F.2d 595 (9th Cir. 1972) (Action challenging validity of milk marketing order)Text

United States v. Lo Bue Bros., 274 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1959) (action to recover damages for penalties under AMAA for orange shipments in excess allotments) Text 

United States v. Lo Bue Bros., 274 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1959) (recover civil penalties under AMAA)Text

Cont’l Nut Co. v. Benson, 166 F. Supp. 142 (N.D. Cal. 1958) (review a marketing order) Text

Panno v. United States, 203 F.2d 504 (9th Cir. 1953) (violation of the AMAA) Text

Acme Breweries v. Brannan, 109 F. Supp. 116 (N.D. Cal. 1952) (review administrative determination) Text

La Verne Co-op. Citrus Ass’n v. United States, 143 F.2d 415 (9th Cir. 1944)(enjoin defendants from handling lemons in violation of order from secretary of ag) Text

United States v. Spokane Fuel Dealers Credit Ass’n, 55 F. Supp. 387 (E.D. Wash. 1944) (violation of Sherman Anti-trust Act) Text

Bowles v. Inland Empire Dairy Ass’n, 53 F. Supp. 210 (E.D. Wash. 1943) (to compel defendant to charge back certain dividends) Text

Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. Pac. Cont’l Grain Co., 38 F. Supp. 230 (D. Or. 1940) (recover difference between amounts paid for freight and amounts allegedly due) Text

United States v. W. Fruit Growers, 34 F. Supp. 794 (S.D. Cal. 1940), decree modified, 124 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1941) (enforce and prevent violation of AMAA) Text

United States v. Hughes, 28 F. Supp. 977 (E.D. Wash. 1939) (compliance with the AMAA) Text

Dunning v. Agric. Prorate Advisory Comm’n of California, 38 F. Supp. 393 (N.D. Cal. 1941) (enjoin enforcement of prorate prune marketing) Text

N. Whittier Heights Citrus Ass’n v. N.L.R.B., 109 F.2d 76 (9th Cir. 1940) (review of order made by national labor relations board) Text

Wallace v. Hudson-Duncan & Co., 98 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1938) (decree for walnut industry imposed an unlawful obligation on complainant) Text

Edwards v. United States, 91 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1937) (appeal of a permanent injunction) Text

---

TENTH CIRCUIT

United States v. Country Classic Dairies, Inc., 2007 WL 677138 (D. Utah 2007) (failure to pay in the producer-settlement fund)

United States v. Country Classic Dairies, Inc., No. 2:05 CV 00499 DS, 2006 WL 2331062, at *1 (D. Utah Aug. 8, 2006) (failure to pay in the producer-settlement fund)

United States v. Country Classic Dairies, Inc., No. 2:05 CV 00499 DS, 2006 WL 2331061, at *1 (D. Utah Aug. 8, 2006) (failure to pay in the producer-settlement fund)

Farm Fresh, Inc. v. Yeutter, 968 F.2d 19 (10th Cir. 1992) (challenging marketing order rezoning)

Hiatt Grain & Feed, Inc. v. Bergland, 446 F. Supp. 457 (D. Kan. 1978), aff’d, 602 F.2d 929 (10th Cir. 1979) (challenging regulations that expanded listed commodities) Text

Cow Palace, Ltd. v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 390 F. Supp. 696 (D. Colo. 1975) (antitrust action) Text

Heber Val. Milk Co. v. Butz, 503 F.2d 96 (10th Cir. 1974) (petition for review of milk order of secretary of agriculture) Text

Gibson v. Jeffers, 478 F.2d 216 (10th Cir. 1973)( seeking declaration of his rights under milk marketing order) Text

I. C. C. v. Milk Producers Mktg. Co., 405 F.2d 639 (10th Cir. 1969) (action enjoin cooperative from engaging in for-hire transportation of property by motor vehicle) Text

United Dairies, Inc. v. Freeman, 271 F. Supp. 779 (D. Colo. 1967) (review milk marketing order decision) Text

Brown v. United States, 367 F.2d 907 (10th Cir. 1966) (enforce a company’s compliance with a milk marketing order) Text

United States v. Brown, 331 F.2d 362 (10th Cir. 1964) (injunction to compel alleged milk handlers to pay into settlement fund) Text

Morrow v. Clayton, 326 F.2d 36 (10th Cir. 1963) (Action involving cotton acreage allotments and marketing quotas) Text

United States v. Brown, 211 F. Supp. 953 (D. Colo. 1962) (enforcement of a milk marketing order) Text

I. C. C. v. Nelson Co-op. Mktg. Ass’n, 209 F. Supp. 697 (W.D. Okla. 1962) (‘cooperative association’ meaning) Text

Corpstein v. United States, 262 F.2d 200 (10th Cir. 1958) (actions by United States to recover penalties) Text

Beatrice Creamery Co. v. Anderson, 75 F. Supp. 363 (D. Kan. 1947) (review a ruling ) Text

Bowles v. Stapleton, 53 F. Supp. 336 (D. Colo. 1943) (restrain the enforcement of an ordinance) Text

---

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Boyd v. Glickman, 12 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (M.D. Ala. 1998) (farmers brought action against USDA challenging testing of peanuts) Text

Alabama Dairy Prod. Ass’n, Inc. v. Yeutter, 980 F.2d 1421 (11th Cir. 1993) (action to enjoin Secretary from holding hearing on proposal to merge several milk orders) Text

Kinnett Dairies, Inc. v. Madigan, 796 F. Supp. 515 (M.D. Ga. 1992) (review of regulated milk price adjustments) Text

Gold Kist, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 626 F. Supp. 95 (N.D. Ga. 1985) (dept of ag lacked authority to impose monetary penalties against plaintiff relating to marketing and handling of peanuts) Text

Kinnett Dairies, Inc. v. Dairymen, Inc., 512 F. Supp. 608 (M.D. Ga. 1981), aff’d, 715 F.2d 520 (11th Cir. 1983) (civil antitrust action against nonprofit agricultural milk marketing association) Text

Bramsen v. Hardin, 346 F. Supp. 934 (S.D. Fla. 1972) (challenging marketing order) Text

Consol.-Tomoka Land Co. v. Butz, 353 F. Supp. 683 (M.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 498 F.2d 1208 (5th Cir. 1974) (challenging validity of marketing order) Text

United States v. Country Lad Foods, Inc., 327 F. Supp. 395 (N.D. Ga. 1971) (action require compliance with a federal milk marketing order)Text

Vaughn-Griffin Packing Co. v. Hardin, 423 F.2d 1094 (5th Cir. 1970) (seeking revocation or modification of marketing order)

Vaughn-Griffin Packing Co. v. Freeman, 294 F. Supp. 458 (M.D. Fla. 1968), aff’d sub nom. Vaughn-Griffin Packing Co. v. Hardin, 423 F.2d 1094 (5th Cir. 1970) (revocation or modification of a marketing order) Text

United States v. Gressinger, 255 F. Supp. 328 (S.D. Fla. 1966) (action to enjoin celery growers from marketing their crop) Text

---

D.C. CIRCUIT

Resolute Forest Prod., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 219 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2016) (constitutional challenges to Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act and violations of Administrative Procedure Act) Text

Koretoff v. Vilsack, 707 F.3d 394 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (challenging rule requiring almonds produced in California to be pasteurized or chemically treated) Text

Koretoff v. Vilsack, 841 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012), aff’d, 707 F.3d 394 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (challenging rule requiring almonds produced to be pasteurized or chemically treated)Text

Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (constitutional challenge to Milk Regulatory Equity Act) Text

Hettinga v. United States, No. 06-1637, 2011 WL 913252 (D.D.C. March 15, 2011) (constitutional challenge to Milk Regulatory Equity Act)

Koretoff v. Vilsack, 614 F.3d 532 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act did not preclude almond producers from obtaining judicial review of USDA almond pasteurization rule)  Text

Hettinga v. United States, 560 F.3d 498 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (challenging Milk Regulatory Equity Act) Text

Ark. Dairy Coop. Ass’n, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 573 F.3d 815 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (challenging milk marketing order)  Text

Koretoff v. Vilsack, 601 F.Supp.2d 238 (D.D.C. 2009) (no right for judicial review by growers)  Text

Ark. Dairy Coop., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 576 F.Supp.2d 147 (D.D.C. 2008) (denial of injunction to prevent implementation of milk marketing order)  Text

Hettinga v. United States, 518 F.Supp.2d 58 (D.D.C. 2007) (challenge against the Milk Regulatory Equity Act)   Text

Edaleen Dairy, LLC v. Johanns, 467 F.3d 778 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (requiring large producers to pay into the producer settlement fund)  Text

Select Milk Producers, Inc. v. Johanns, 400 F.3d 939 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (action enjoining the separate pricing of Class III buttermilk retroactively)   Text

Avocados Plus Inc. v. Veneman, 370 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (suit challenging provisions of the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Act as compelled speech)   Text

Nw. Indep. Producers Ass’n v. Veneman, 312 F.Supp.2d 23 (D.D.C. 2004) (challenge to altering the mechanism by which milk prices were being set)   Text

Hershey Foods Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 293 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (challenge to the pricing classifications on milk)  Text

Milk Indus. Found. v. Glickman, 132 F.3d 1467 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (alleging improper delegation of congressional authority) Text

Milk Indus. Found. v. Glickman, 949 F. Supp. 882 (D.D.C. 1996) (challenging authority to make order) Text

Competitive Enterprises Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 954 F. Supp. 265 (D.D.C. 1996) (peanut farmer challenged action by secretary to establish quotas for domestically grown peanuts) Text

Farmers All. for Improved Regulation v. Madigan, No. CIV. A. 89-0959(RCL), 1991 WL 178117, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 1991) (action against Secretary for failure to comply with § 900.3)

W. Dairymen Co-op., Inc. v. Yeutter, No. CIV.A. 90-0220 (RCL), 1990 WL 547032, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 10, 1990) (challenging a suspension order) Text

Nat’l Farmers Org., Inc. v. Lyng, 695 F. Supp. 1207 (D.D.C. 1988) (review of Secretary of Agriculture’s decision to delete proposal by milk producers) Text

Goodie Brand Packing Corp. v. Lyng, No. CIV.A. 86-3258, 1987 WL 14597, at *1 (D.D.C. July 17, 1987) (challenging a USDA regulation that prohibits the sale of certain size tomatoes)

Ivanhoe Citrus Ass’n v. Handley, 612 F. Supp. 1560 (D.D.C. 1985) (action for a FOIA request) Text

Cmty. Nutrition Inst. v. Block, 698 F.2d 1239 (D.C. Cir. 1983), rev’d, 467 U.S. 340, 104 S. Ct. 2450, 81 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1984) (challenging certain milk market orders) Text

Cmty. Nutrition Inst. v. Bergland, 32 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 910 (D.D.C. 1981) (action to declare milk market orders invalid) Text

Am. Dairy of Evansville, Inc. v. Bergland, 627 F.2d 1252 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (seeking judicial review) Text

Schepps Dairy, Inc. v. Bergland, 628 F.2d 11 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (pricing order for Texas milk marketing area) Text

Mktg. Assistance Program, Inc. v. Bergland, 562 F.2d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (action attacking the validity of a milk marketing order) Text

Carnation Co. v. Butz, 372 F. Supp. 883 (D.D.C. 1974) (challenging legality of scheduled price adjustment)Text

Nader v. Butz, 474 F.2d 426 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (suit attacking level of price support established for milk and milk products) Text

Walter Holm & Co. v. Hardin, 449 F.2d 1009 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (action for declaratory, injunctive and other relief from regulations) Text

Fairmont Foods Co. v. Hardin, 442 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (validity of a location differential provision of a milk marketing order) Text

Blair v. Freeman, 370 F.2d 229 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (injunction restraining enforcement of ‘nearby differential’ provision in milk marketing regulation) Text

State of Minn. ex rel. Lord v. Benson, 274 F.2d 764 (D.C. Cir. 1960) (action for declaration that federal milk marketing order was invalid) Text

State of Minn. ex rel. Lord v. Benson, 172 F. Supp. 903 (D.D.C 1959), aff’d, 274 F.2d 764 (D.C. Cir. 1960) (action for declaration that federal milk marketing order was invalid) Text

Wolff v. Benson, 258 F.2d 428 (D.C. Cir. 1958) (action against commodity marketing agreement) Text

United States v. Maryland Co-op. Milk Producers, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 151 (D.D.C 1956) (milk producers’ violation of anti-trust laws) Text

Benson v. Schofield, 236 F.2d 719 (D.C. Cir. 1956) (injunction seeking to restrain the secretary of ag from putting place an order to control milk distribution) Text

United Milk Producers of N.J. v. Benson, 225 F.2d 527 (D.C. Cir. 1955) (enjoin price fixing marketing order) Text

Grant v. Benson, 229 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1955) (action to enjoin the Secretary from making payments under an order) Text

Sylvan Seal Milk v. Commodity Credit Corp., 197 F.2d 411 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (action to recover subsidies for milk) Text

Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass’n v. United States, 193 F.2d 907 (D.C. Cir. 1951) (conspiracy to violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by restraint of commerce in milk) Text

United States v. Maryland & Va. Milk Producers’ Ass’n, 90 F. Supp. 681 (D.D.C 1950), rev’d sub nom. Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass’n v. United States, 193 F.2d 907 (D.C. Cir. 1951) (alleged conspiracy to violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act) Text

Brannan v. Stark, 185 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir. 1950), aff’d, 342 U.S. 451, 72 S. Ct. 433, 96 L. Ed. 497 (1952) (action to prevent enforcement of order) Text

United States v. Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass’n, 179 F.2d 426 (D.C. Cir. 1949) (action for conspiracy to restrain trade in milk and milk products) Text

Stark v. Brannan, 82 F. Supp. 614 (D.D.C 1949), aff’d, 185 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir. 1950), aff’d, 342 U.S. 451, 72 S. Ct. 433, 96 L. Ed. 497 (1952) (injunction against enforcement of marketing order) Text

Stark v. Wickard, 136 F.2d 786 (D.C. Cir. 1943), rev’d, 321 U.S. 288, 64 S. Ct. 559, 88 L. Ed. 733 (1944) (challenging marketing order) Text

Stitzel-Weller Distillery v. Wickard, 118 F.2d 19 (D.C. Cir. 1941) (recover parity payments) Text

---

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Lion Farms, LLC v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 521 (2016) (seeking just compensation under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause)

Boyajian v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 336 (2016) (alleging that growers were not paid for raisins designated as reserve tonnage raisins under AMAA)

Ciapessoni v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 332 (2016) (action seeking just compensation under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause)

Koretoff v. Vilsack, 707 F.3d 394 (D.C. Cir. 2013)(pasteurization requirement under marketing order)Text

Koretoff v. Vilsack, 841 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012) aff’d, 707 F.3d 394 (D.C. Cir. 2013)(pasteurization requirement under marketing order) Text

Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012)(constitutionally prohibited bill of attainder of milk orders)Text

Hettinga v. United States, 770 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2011) aff’d, 677 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012)(challenge to the MREA, equal protection) Text

Evans v. United States, 250 Fed. Appx. 321 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (takings under a federal marketing order) Text

Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (marketing orders under the Takings Clause)

Evans v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 554 (Fed. Cl. 2006) (takings under a federal marketing order)

Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 391 (Fed. Cl. 2003) (claim of taking because marketing order used collected funds to subsidize exports)   Text

Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 435 (Fed. Cl. 2003) (taking of storage bins through the powers given by a marketing order)  Text

Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 427 (Fed. Cl. 2002) (claim that raisins were not inspected as required by marketing order)

Cal-Almond, Inc. v. United States, 73 F.3d 381 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (action for compensation for a taking under the Fifth Amendment)

Cal-Almond, Inc. v. United States, 30 Fed. Cl. 244 (1994), aff’d, 73 F.3d 381 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (action for compensation for a taking under the Fifth Amendment)

Associated Milk Producers, Inc. v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 682 (1991) (action challenging validity and applicability of regulations implementing milk price reduction provisions)

Doty v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 615 (1991) (dairy farmer alleged. Breach of dairy termination contract)

Rieschick v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 621 (1990) (action challenging secretary’s regulation reducing milk base per cow)

Carruth v. United States, 627 F.2d 1068 (Ct. Cl. 1980) (challenging authority of Secretary to reduce or withhold price supports from peanuts containing mold)

Kyer v. United States, 369 F.2d 714 (Ct. Cl. 1966), abrogated by Slattery v. United States, 635 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (breach of contract)

O’Donnell v. United States, 166 Ct. Cl. 107 (1964) (claim against employee of USDA on misrepresentation)

N. Pac. Emergency Exp. Ass’n v. United States, 95 Ct. Cl. 430 (1942) (recovery for damages)

Calvert Distilling Co. v. United States, 94 Ct. Cl. 517 (1941) (action to recover payments)

S. Dakota Wheat Growers Ass’n v. United States, 90 Ct. Cl. 222 (1940) (cooperative marketing associations in connection with stabilization activities in grain)

---

ARIZONA

United Dairymen of Arizona v. Rawlings, 217 Ariz. 592, 177 P.3d 334 (Ct. App. 2008) (breach of cooperative marketing agreement) Text

Anthony A. Bianco, Inc. v. Hess, 86 Ariz. 14, 339 P.2d 1038 (1959) (declaratory judgement interpreting parts of ag prorate act) Text

Burgess v. Hearsh, 73 Ariz. 151, 238 P.2d 1102 (1951) (validity of the Agricultural Prorate Act and the grapefruit prorate program) Text

---

CALIFORNIA

Lion Raisins, Inc. v. Ross, 64 Cal. App. 5th 718, 279 Cal. Rptr. 3d 222 (2021), review denied (Sept. 1, 2021), cert. denied, No. 21-1068, 2022 WL 1528382 (U.S. May 16, 2022) (action for injuctive relief challenging constitutionality of marketing order)

Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Com., 4 Cal. 5th 1204, 417 P.3d 699, cert. denied sub nom. Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Comm’n, 139 S. Ct. 567, 202 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2018) (challenge constitutionality of compelled assessments) Text

People ex rel. Ross v. Raisin Valley Farms LLC, 240 Cal. App. 4th 1254, 193 Cal. Rptr. 3d 246 (2015) (alleging that Department marketing order violated numerous constitutional rights) Text

Felix Costa & Sons v. Ross, No. C069389, 2014 WL 4776137 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2014)( California Marketing Act of 1937, cherry marketing program) Text

Stark Packing Corp. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., No. F052658, 2009 WL 2185407, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. July 23, 2009), as modified (Aug. 6, 2009) (alleging breach of contract for allocation of fruit) Text

Gallo Cattle Co. v. Kawamura, 159 Cal.App.4th 948, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (producers forced to pay for advertising)  Text

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Cal. Milk Producers Advisory Bd., 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 900 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (challenge to ad campaign)   Text

Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Kawamura, 90 P.3d 1179 (Cal. 2004) (case alleging that plum marketing orders requirement on funding generic advertising is unconstitutional)  Text

Wileman Bros. & Elliott v. Lyons, No. F032298, 2001 WL 1613860, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2001) (constitutional challenges to a marketing order for California plums)

Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons, 94 Cal. App. 4th 665, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 657 (2001), review granted and opinion superseded, 43 P.3d 130 (Cal. 2002), and aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Kawamura, 33 Cal. 4th 1, 90 P.3d 1179 (2004) (seeking to enjoin as unconstitutional a marketing order promulgated under California Marketing Act) Text

Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons, 24 Cal. 4th 468, 12 P.3d 720 (2000) (enjoin marketing order as unconstitutional)Text

Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Veneman, 72 Cal. App. 4th 1025, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 598, review granted and opinion superseded, 983 P.2d 728 (Cal. 1999), and vacated sub nom. Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons, 24 Cal. 4th 468, 12 P.3d 720 (2000) (enjoin marketing order as unconstitutional) Text

Voss v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. App. 4th 900, 54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 225 (1996) (seeking determination that plum marketing order issued pursuant to California Marketing Act was invalid) Text

California Kiwifruit Com. v. Moss, 45 Cal. App. 4th 769, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 138, as modified on denial of reh’g (June 17, 1996), vacated (July 21, 1997), review granted and opinion superseded sub nom. California Kiwifruit Corp. v. Moss, 920 P.2d 1252 (Cal. 1996) (recover assessment for advertising and promotion)

E. M. Consumer Corp. v. Christensen, 47 Cal. App. 3d 642, 121 Cal. Rptr. 177 (Ct. App. 1975) (challenging constitutionality of a marketing order)

Child v. Warne, 194 Cal. App. 2d 623, 15 Cal. Rptr. 437 (Ct. App. 1961) (enjoinment of director of ag from enforcing avocado marketing order)

Brock v. Superior Ct. In & For City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 109 Cal. App. 2d 594, 241 P.2d 283 (1952) (action against state director of ag to review marketing order) Text

Dickey v. Raisin Proration Zone No. 1, 24 Cal. 2d 796, 151 P.2d 505 (1944) (challenging of validity of certain features of a marketing program)

Pac. Coast Dairy v. Dep’t of Agric., 19 Cal. 2d 818, 123 P.2d 442 (1942), rev’d sub nom. Pac. Coast Dairy v. Dep’t of Agric. of Cal., 318 U.S. 285, 63 S. Ct. 628, 87 L. Ed. 761 (1943) (proceedings for revocation of petitioner’s license as a milk distributor) Text

United Milk Producers of Cal. v. Cecil, 47 Cal. App. 2d 758, 118 P.2d 830 (1941) (action to compel the Director to rescind his order denying milk distributors’ licenses) Text

United States v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. 2d 189, 120 P.2d 26 (1941) (enjoin the enforcement of an order) Text

Ray v. Parker, 15 Cal. 2d 275, 101 P.2d 665 (1940) (enjoin defendant from enforcing and administering the Milk Stabilization Act)  Text

---

GEORGIA

Dep’t of Agric. v. Country Lad Foods, Inc., 226 Ga. 631, 177 S.E.2d 38 (1970) (unconstitutionality of ag regulations)

Georgia Dep’t of Agric. v. Country Lad Foods, Inc., 224 Ga. 683, 164 S.E.2d 110 (1968) (action to enjoin dept. of ag for milk order)

Holcombe v. Georgia Milk Producers Confederation, 188 Ga. 358, 3 S.E.2d 705 (1939) (challenging constitutionality of Milk Control Law)

---

LOUISIANA

State ex rel. Guste v. Louisiana Milk Comm’n, 297 So. 2d 750 (La. Ct. App. 1974) (enjoin enforcements of certain orders of Milk commission

Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets v. Louisiana Milk Comm’n, 200 So. 2d 37 (La. Ct. App.), writ refused sub nom. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets v. Louisiana Milk Comn., 251 La. 51, 202 So. 2d 658 (1967) (challenging validity of statute authorizing the fixing of prices )Text

Pearce v. Kramer, 128 So. 2d 304 (La. Ct. App. 1961) (action against milk distributor to enjoin violation of orderly milk marketing act) Text

Smith Milk Co. v. Pearce, 129 So. 2d 525 (La. Ct. App. 1961) (whether commissioner of ag exceeded his authority)

---

MASSACHUSETTS

New England Milk Dealers Ass’n, Inc. v. Dep’t of Food & Agric., 33 Mass. App. Ct. 935, 600 N.E.2d 1004 (1992) (challenging validity of milk price control order)

Com. v. Haseotes, 356 Mass. 230, 249 N.E.2d 639 (1969) (violation of statute governing retailing of prepackaged meats, poultry or fish products) Text

Milk Control Bd. v. Gosselin’s Dairy, 301 Mass. 174, 16 N.E.2d 641 (1938) (action to enjoin defendant from selling milk)

---

MICHIGAN

Old Orchard Brands, Inc. v. Dep’t of Agric., 152 Mich. App. 274, 393 N.W.2d 608 (1986) (seeking declaratory judgement that ag commodities marketing act preempted by federal law)

Michigan Canners & Freezers Ass’n, Inc. v. Agric. Mktg. & Bargaining Bd., 416 Mich. 706, 332 N.W.2d 134 (1982), rev’d, 467 U.S. 461, 104 S. Ct. 2518, 81 L. Ed. 2d 399 (1984) (action challenging constitutionality of ag marketing and bargaining act)

Dukesherer Farms, Inc. v. Ball, 405 Mich. 1, 273 N.W.2d 877 (1979) (constitutionality of Michigan Cherry Promotion and Development Program) Text

---

MISSOURI

Borden Co. v. Thomason, 353 S.W.2d 735 (Mo. 1962)(declaratory judgement that unfair milk act was unconstitutional)

State ex rel. Smithco Transp. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 307 S.W.2d 361 (Mo. App. 1957) (application for dairy transporter) Text

---

NEW JERSEY

In re September 28, 2006 Order of Dir. of Div. of Marketing & Dev., 2006 WL 3783503 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2006) (appeal from an order fixing milk prices)

Garden State Farms, Inc. v. Mathis, 61 N.J. 406, 294 A.2d 713 (1972) (appeal from an order fixing minimum milk prices)

Burlington Food Store, Inc. v. Hoffman, 45 N.J. 214, 212 A.2d 29 (1965) (appeal from an order fixing milk prices)

Como Farms v. Foran, 6 N.J. Super. 306, 71 A.2d 201 (App. Div. 1950) (unconstitutionality of milk order)

---

NEW YORK

W. New York Milk Dealers, Inc. v. Butcher, 154 A.D.2d 43, 551 N.Y.S.2d 623 (1990) (review of order expanding milk market)

Niagara Frontier Milk Distributors Bargaining Agency, Inc. v. Wickham, 27 A.D.2d 686, 276 N.Y.S.2d 156 (1967) (unconstitutionality of milk order)

Wickham v. Trapani, 41 Misc. 2d 749, 246 N.Y.S.2d 137 (Sup. Ct. 1964), aff’d, 26 A.D.2d 216, 272 N.Y.S.2d 6 (1966) (constitutionality of a provision of the Agriculture and Markets Law) Text

H. P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond, 297 N.Y. 209, 78 N.E.2d 476 (1948), rev’d sub nom. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525, 69 S. Ct. 657, 93 L. Ed. 865 (1949), and on reargument, 300 N.Y. 480, 88 N.E.2d 661 (1949) (license for a new plant)

Westchester Cty. v. Dep’t of Health of City of New York, 297 N.Y. 491, 74 N.E.2d 190 (1947) (constitutionality of regulation)

Westchester Cty. v. Dep’t of Health of City of New York, 65 N.Y.S.2d 313 (Sup. Ct.), aff’d sub nom. Cty. of Westchester v. Dep’t of Health of the City of New York, 271 A.D. 835, 66 N.Y.S.2d 648 (App. Div. 1946), aff’d sub nom. Westchester Cty. v. Dep’t of Health of City of New York, 297 N.Y. 491, 74 N.E.2d 190 (1947) (constitutionality of regulation)

Noyes v. Landel, 18 N.Y.S.2d 676 (Sup. Ct.), aff’d, 259 A.D. 1108, 21 N.Y.S.2d 616 (App. Div. 1940), aff’d, 284 N.Y. 563, 33 N.E.2d 865 (1940), on reargument, 285 N.Y. 749, 34 N.E.2d 906 (1941), and aff’d, 285 N.Y. 749, 34 N.E.2d 906 (1941) (enforcement of milk marketing order)

---

OREGON

Medo-Bel Creamery, Inc. v. State By & Through Kunzman, 65 Or. App. 614, 673 P.2d 537 (1983) (challenging practice of the State in fixing minimum price to be charged by milk producers) Text

State Dep’t of Agric. v. Tillamook Cheese & Dairy Ass’n, 251 Or. 393, 439 P.2d 592 (1968) (enforcing order requiring payment to milk producers)

State Dep’t of Agric. v. Watkins, 244 Or. 484, 419 P.2d 26 (1966) (action to enforce alleged violation of milk marketing act)

Savage v. Martin, 161 Or. 660, 91 P.2d 273 (1939) (enjoin the defendants from enforcing an order of the Milk Control Board)

---

PENNSYLVANIA

Dairylea Co-op. Inc. v. Pennsylvania Milk Mktg. Bd., 3 A.3d 712 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010) (review of milk marketing order)

Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Milk Mktg. Bd., 683 A.2d 972 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996) (review of milk marketing order setting minimum prices)

Finucane v. Com., Pennsylvania Milk Mktg. Bd., 132 Pa. Cmwlth. 85, 572 A.2d 27 (1990), aff’d, 530 Pa. 205, 607 A.2d 1076 (1992) (appeal of milk marketing order)

Lily Penn Food Stores, Inc. v. Com., Pennsylvania Milk Mktg. Bd., 80 Pa. Cmwlth. 266, 472 A.2d 715 (1984) (appeal of milk marketing order)

Lily Penn Food Stores, Inc. v. Com., Milk Mktg. Bd., 62 Pa. Cmwlth. 597, 437 A.2d 485 (1981) (review of milk marketing order for milk prices)

Curll v. Dairymen’s Co-op. Sales Ass’n, 389 Pa. 216, 132 A.2d 271 (1957) (issuance of federal milk marketing order without submitting matter to vote of stockholders) Text

Rieck-McJunkin Dairy Co. v. Milk Control Comm’n, 341 Pa. 153, 18 A.2d 868 (1941) (validity of marketing order)

Green v. Milk Control Comm’n, 340 Pa. 1, 16 A.2d 9 (1940) (contract, restrain defendant from proceeding with suit)

---

TEXAS

State v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., No. 220,346, 1974 WL 13778, at *1 (Tex. Dist. Oct. 1, 1974) (alleged violation of state constitution)

Coastal Bend Milk Producers Ass’n v. Garcia, 368 S.W.2d 260 (Tex. Civ. App. 1963) (injunction restraining milk buyer from making payments for milk purchased)

H. Rouw Co. v. Texas Citrus Comm’n, 151 Tex. 182, 247 S.W.2d 231 (1952) (enjoin defendant from carrying on business of dealing in citrus fruits)

---

TENNESSEE

Nashville Milk Producers, Inc. v. Alston, 43 Tenn. App. 257, 307 S.W.2d 66 (1957) (transfer of dairy cattle, fraud)

Mazanec v. Flannery, 176 Tenn. 125, 138 S.W.2d 441 (1940) (constitutionality of strawberry inspection)

---

WISCONSIN

Servais v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 2001 WI App 165, 246 Wis. 2d 920, 631 N.W.2d 629, aff’d, 2002 WI 42, 252 Wis. 2d 145, 643 N.W.2d 92 (state antitrust action) Text

Dean Foods Co. v. Foley, 125 Wis. 2d 131, 370 N.W.2d 588 (Ct. App. 1985) (action to protect milk producers from nonpayment by dairies)

Pure Milk Prod. Co-op. v. Nat’l Farmers Org., 64 Wis. 2d 241, 219 N.W.2d 564 (1974) (injunction for breach of marketing contracts)

State ex rel. Dep’t of Agric. & Markets v. Gagnon, 237 Wis. 617, 296 N.W. 627 (1941) (order restraining defendant from selling milk at retail without a license)