§Why CasetextPricing

DELANO FARMS COMPANY v. CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE COMMISSION

Appellants’ Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

58 Cited authorities

  1. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police

    491 U.S. 58 (1989)   Cited 24,147 times
    Holding that official capacity state officer suits for prospective injunctive relief are suits against a "person" under § 1983 even though a "State" is not a "person" under that statute

  2. St. Louis v. Praprotnik

    485 U.S. 112 (1988)   Cited 5,269 times
    Holding that municipal liability could lie "if a series of decisions by a subordinate official manifested a ‘custom or usage’ of which the supervisor must have been aware"

  3. Agostini v. Felton

    521 U.S. 203 (1997)   Cited 1,623 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "lower courts should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions"

  4. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

    376 U.S. 254 (1964)   Cited 6,910 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a public official or public figure can recover damages for defamation on a matter of public concern only if he proves that the speaker acted with actual malice

  5. Central Hudson Gas Elec. v. Public Serv. Comm'n

    447 U.S. 557 (1980)   Cited 2,052 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on commercial speech must directly advance a substantial governmental interest

  6. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

    555 U.S. 460 (2009)   Cited 662 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a government adopted donated monument because it "took ownership of that monument and put it on permanent display in a park that it owns and manages"

  7. Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.

    513 U.S. 30 (1994)   Cited 715 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Port Authority does not enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity despite the fact that "[s]tate courts . . . repeatedly have typed the Port Authority an agency of the States rather than a municipal unit or local district"

  8. Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel

    524 U.S. 498 (1998)   Cited 557 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that levying Coal Act premiums on a pre-1978 signatory operator was an unconstitutional taking because the operator never agreed to provide lifetime benefits to its retirees

  9. McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco

    496 U.S. 18 (1990)   Cited 488 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the due process clause obligates states to "provide meaningful backward-looking relief to rectify any unconstitutional deprivation" resulting from a tax statute

  10. Johanns v. Livestock Mtg. Assoc

    544 U.S. 550 (2005)   Cited 200 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that beef advertising campaign constituted government speech because the "message set out in the beef promotions is from beginning to end the message established by the Federal Government"

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 486,959 times   689 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 60   Cited 53,581 times   146 Legal Analyses
    Granting relief from the operation of a judgment

  13. Section 608c - Orders

    7 U.S.C. § 608c   Cited 335 times
    Allowing handlers subject to a marketing order to petition for modification or exemption from an order that is inconsistent with the statute

  14. Section 65650.5 - Appeal to director; judicial review

    Cal. Food & Agr. Code § 65650.5   Cited 2 times

    Any person aggrieved by any action of the commission may appeal to the director. The director shall review the record of the proceedings before the commission. If the director finds that the record shows by substantial evidence that the commission's action was not an abuse of discretion or illegal, he shall dismiss such appeal. If he finds such action is not substantially sustained by the record, was an abuse of discretion, or illegal, he may reverse the action of the commission. Any such decision

  15. Section 981.81 - Assessment

    7 C.F.R. § 981.81   Cited 3 times

    (a)Requirement for payment. Each handler shall pay to the Board on demand by the Board, from time to time, such sum less any amounts credited pursuant to § 981.41 , based on such rate per pound of almonds, kernel weight basis, received by him for his own account (except as to receipts from other handlers on which assessments have been paid) as the Secretary finds is necessary to provide funds to meet the authorized board expenses and the operating reserve requirements, and establishes for the crop

  16. Section 981.33 - Selection and term of office

    7 C.F.R. § 981.33

    (a) Members and their respective alternates for positions open on the Board shall be selected by the Secretary from persons nominated pursuant to § 981.32 , or, at the discretion of the Secretary, from other qualified persons, for a term of office beginning August 1. Members and alternates shall continue to serve until their respective successors are selected and qualified. (b) The term of office of members of the Board shall be for a period of three years beginning on August 1 of the years selected