Skip to main content

California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print


A statutory agricultural marketing program that permits some fruit growers to mandate that all fruit growers participate financially in the program does not have a substantial governmental interest that outweighs the free speech rights of the other producers.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 12/17/2001
  • Published 12/17/2001



  • California Court of Appeal


  • For Appellant:
  • Brian C. Leighton, Clovis;  Mayer, Brown & Platt, Michael W. McConnell, Chicago, IL, and Sharon Swingle, Washington, Dist. of Columbia, for Plaintiff and Appellant., King & Spaulding, Steven G. Brody, Jeanette M. Viggiano;  Daniel J. Popeo, R. Shawn Gunnarson;  Thomas, Walton & Graves and John R. Walton, for Washington Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

  • For Appellees:
  • Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Roderick E. Walston, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles W. Getz IV and Richard M. Frank, Assistant Attorneys General, Edna Walz, Ronald A. Reiter, Seth E. Mermin and Tracy L. Winsor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent., Kahn, Soares & Conway, George H. Soares, Dale A. Stern, Sacramento, and Robert S. Hedrick, for California Avocado Commission, California Apple Commission, California Asparagus Commission, California Cut Flower Commission, California Date Commission, California Egg Commission, California Forest Products Commission, California Grape Rootstock Improvement Commission, California Kiwifruit Commission, Lake County Winegrape Growers Commission, Lodi Woodbridge Winegrape Growers Commission, California Pepper Commission, California Pistachio Commission, California Rice Commission, California Sheep Commission, California Strawberry Commission, California Tomato Commission, California Walnut Commission, and California Wheat Commission as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Copied to clipboard