*1 En Banc. March 47828-7. 1982.] [No. Appellant, Dairy Company, Products Respondent, v. Bar-T Dairy, Ranch Dairymen's Association, Northwest Appellants. al, et Philip Magee, Cutler, Maclver, L. E. Sax & James appellants. Donohue, and James P.

Reed, Giesa, P.S., & Otterstrom John P. Giesa and Casey, respondent. Michael J. Eikenherry, Attorney General,

Kenneth O. and John R. *2 Ferguson, Ellis, Beaulaurier, P. Jon James M. Assist- respondent. ants, amici curiae for by began J. This a action as suit Consoli- Rosellini, Dairy (Consolidated) (a Company nonprofit dated Products corporation Washington operates cooperative which on a functioning marketing agent basis, as a for a federated group dairy owning pro- of farmer associations and some cessing plants) by recover a sum owed one itsof custo- (Bar-T) (a Dairy noncooperative mers, Bar-T Ranch milk processing Washington corporation). Bar-T cross-com- plained damages allegedly resulting for from antitrust law joining Dairymen's violations, Northwest Association (NDA), cooperative, also a aas codefendant.

Judgment was entered Consolidated on its claim for against summary Bar-T. Consolidated NDA moved for judgment dismissing statutory contending claims, by complained exempt the activities Bar-T were from Capper-Volstead Act, antitrust suits §§ under the 7 U.S.C. counterpart 291, 292, a has state RCW 24.34. Packing Sons, Co., Golob & Inc. v. Schaake Wn.2d (1980). P.2d This motion was denied. lengthy gave trial, At the conclusion of the the court requested "monopoliza- Bar-T's on the law instructions cooperatives' suits, tion" in antitrust but refused all of the requested pertaining instructions exemption, following: save for persons engaged pro- You are instructed that in the agricultural products may duction of together as farmers act cooperative associations and have mar- keting agencies statute, in common. Under a federal cooperatives combining marketing pur-

mere act of poses, more, without violation the antitrust laws. jury in the amount a verdict 24. The returned

Instruction they cooperatives, finding against $195,515.51 engaged monopolized market, and had relevant had competition. The trial court doubled methods of unfair attorney damages, punitive awarded Bar-T amount attorneys have earned would in they the amount fees double hourly judg- paid basis. Motions for on an been notwithstanding trial were or a new the verdict ment denied. cooperatives' contention meritorious

We find notwithstanding judgment the verdict were entitled assigned. errors reach other and do not holding company, United is owned (UDA) (which Dairymen's in turn is owned Association including dairy cooperatives, NDA, which is its a number of Empire Dairymen's major shareholder, Associa- and Inland (IEDA)). cooperatives organized nonprofit All are tion products produced purpose marketing their milk operating expenses earnings after All of their members. *3 paid in members, stock either cash or are returned to the rotation. by regulated States milk the United

The sale of is promul- Department Agriculture, which issues orders of setting according gated rules the certain standards and to producers paid price their milk. for be the minimum to agri- requirements pursuant of federal This is done processing brings marketing laws. Milk sold for cultural bottling price and fluid con- milk sold for than a lesser together, prices sumption. and the "blended" The two paid supplying in ratio their contri- milk are to the farmers paid prices for milk, share the so that all can butions milk. fluid sprang regulation

Historically, from the need for federal including milk circumstances, the fact a number of upon depends great and con- production the events deal a (such season, and lactation the cow's of nature ditions appears perishable). highly the It milk is the fact that a short- controlled on cannot be the market of milk to flow ability the to con- term basis. A lack of correlation between typical production agricul- is trol and consumer demand vagaries products depend which on the of nature. tural economically very large a suffer from a Thus farmer (when flooded) very yield or the market will be from yield. small (1) by provide payment marketing

The federal for: orders according producers milk minimum to to handlers of (2) usage, pooling differing values for the vari- milk of the average, or "blend" return ous uses of milk to achieve (3) producers, handlers' books and records to for verify reported audit of producer price payments,

utilization and (4) payment administering by of the the orders cost they regulate. the handlers Agricul- price Department the

The minimum always profitable to ture does not allow for return the transpire farmer, between the time because of events In NDA is time it revised. an order issued the is adequate price the order was not determined that federal price its milk the minimum and raised the above depart- authorized.1 Such raises were countenanced according ment, and, on of its who testified one officials practice upon by cooperatives, of the was relied behalf department justification constantly chang- as a not ing changing the minimum meet conditions. Spokane comprised area, In the customers Consolidated's open buyers milk on market most of raw Empire IEDA, market at the times involved in Inland area. lawsuit, milk. It whether marketed its own clear open milk was of it was sold market. Some sold directly private processors farmers under contracts. acquire by private contract, its milk but Bar-T chose not purchased it Prior to 1973 it instead from Consolidated. *4 Spokane purchased its milk Milk Producers' had from (SMPA), year, with most which dissolved that Association NDA, testimony marketing agent the was 1While is the price producer cooperative it will its milk. determines the at which sell each According joining testi- to Bar-T's of its members mony, NDA. NDA) (on the behalf of raised when Consolidated September price 1974, milk in Bar-T found itself of its profit dealers, since its sales to unable to make a on milk in the stores were com- the petitive.2 of other labels of supply elsewhere, milk find a Bar-T endeavored to making paper putting with contact an ad (NFO), Organization cooperative, Farmers National outside bring in milk Boise at lower from which offered hampered delivery However, would be Bar-T feared by Boise, that it and also winter conditions on the road quality or of milk offered NFO could not be sure of supplier, dependability a (which should of that association as price go it after milk down did of Consolidated's months). Therefore, Bar-T to remain with Con- decided rapidly declining, however, as its Its sales were solidated. moving milk was not the stores. Consolidated's by May dropped Nevertheless, minimum 1975. Bar- it T's business continued to decline and October closed its doors.3 general manager events, Nash, Merrit

Prior to these although which, UDA, SMPA, mar- it was a member of products, begun campaign keted its own mergers to effect IEDA with NDA. enthusiasm for with His merger leadership NDA. There was a was shared opinion Spokane cooperatives within the as to difference merge whether it would be in their best interest to with the larger cooperative. membership unwilling IEDA was believing merge NDA, with SMPA or its interests would Eventually organization. it better served a smaller be processing activities suit that Consolidated's 2There is no contention competition Bar-T. were in unfair plastic packaged milk in that Bar-T 3The defendants' evidence showed theory leaked, high rejection. frequently causing bags, rate of Their jury poor management. But was due to the failure of Bar-T's business persuaded evidently the cause of Bar-T's losses. that this was was not *5 Mayflower. merged Oregon cooperative, with an finally by In a vote was taken SMPA and a union by "agreement was effected with NDA plan means of an and reorganization reorganization", a method of evi- dently adopted method, on advice of counsel. Under respect were sold to Consolidated. One assets of SMPA merger uniting in which from a true this method differed automatically was that the members of SMPA did not They join become members of NDA. were free to NDA or they manager not, However, chose. Nash advised the by they former members of SMPA letter had become including SMPA, Bar-T, members of NDA. Customers of also were sent letters to that effect. discovered, error this advice was soon

former of SMPA were told that it would be nec- members essary sign membership agreements for them to if join cooperative. wished to Over two-thirds of the members did so. presented jury

Bar-T evidence from which the could Secretary reporting Nash, State, infer to the misrepresented yes the number of votes cast the mem- bership, explanation though even Nash offered a credible discrepancy report Secretary between the original meeting minutes of the at which the votes were counted.

Bar-T introduced evidence that Consolidated had at one factory, pos- if time advised SMPA that it built a cheese sibility considering, which it would not was Consolidated products. market market its cheese It had also refused to surplus claiming milk, facilities, SMPA's lack of but did process powdered cooperative, although milk at for that joined NDA, distressed After the SMPA members they produced processed milk which was and marketed Consolidated. reorgani-

Also, that, Bar-T introduced evidence after the SMPA, zation of NDA and Consolidated refused to honor agreement process IEDA which SMPA had made with (which powder plant some of its milk at SMPA's reorganization). acquired in the expressly that these however, claim Bar-T, disavows sought which it failure for acts caused the business theory damages Rather, is that in this action. obtained of its member- and the addition of SMPA dissolution ship to obtain NDA enabled Consolidated the rolls of possible monopoly power it to made it turn higher than the federal its milk which was exact a fail- minimum, in turn caused Bar-T's and that this order *6 raising constituted ure. It also claims that industry "pool practice" "predatory in the load- known briefly discussing ing". theories, exam- we will Before these legal setting in which this case rests. ine the cooperatives, complaint against the as it went The cross They jury, on RCW 19.86.020 and .040. was based provide: deceptive competition and unfair or Unfair methods of any practices in the conduct of trade or commerce

acts or are hereby unlawful. declared RCW 19.86.020. any person monopolize, unlawful for or It shall be conspire

attempt monopolize combine or with or monopolize any part person persons of trade other or commerce. or RCW 19.86.040. any person injured 19.86.090, in his business

Under RCW by property entitled to a violation of these sections is or damages. bring for an action purpose is to that the of the act

RCW 19.86.920declares body governing complement restraints of the federal of law competition deceptive, unfair, and fraud- trade, unfair practices, guided and that the courts should be ulent acts or comparable interpretation given federal courts to exempts trans- actions or federal statutes. RCW 19.86.170 authority agencies permitted regulatory under actions Packing Co., Sons, & Inc. v. Schaake law. In Golob (1980), pro- that this P.2d 444 we observed Wn.2d permitted by exempts statute. which are vision actions illegal principles, generally it is Under antitrust acquire monopoly power ordinary company con- to seek to sciously by How- than honest industrial effort. means other (38 Clayton Stat. 731 ever, of the Act under section 6 (1977)) (1914), § and the 15 U.S.C. exemptions specific Congress

Act, created one of its has provides: policy latter rule for reasons. The from this pro- production agricultural engaged in the Persons dairymen may planters, ranchmen, . . . farmers, ducts as act corporate together otherwise, associations, or collectively processing, pre- capital stock, in without or paring handling, marketing market, in interstate products persons foreign commerce, such so may marketing agencies engaged. Such associations have common; and such associations and their members necessary agreements make the contracts and purposes: Provided, however, effect such ciations are That such asso- operated for the mutual benefit of the mem- producers, thereof, as such and conform to bers both one or following requirements: of the That no member the association is allowed First. than of the or more membership one vote because amount of stock capital may therein, or, he own pay That the association does not dividends Second. per membership capital on stock or excess of 8 centum per annum. *7 any following: inAnd case to the pro- Third. not deal in the That the association shall greater in value than ducts of nonmembers to an amount (Feb. 18,1922, such as are handled it for members. ch. 388.) 57, 1,§ 42 Stat. § 7 U.S.C. 291. Secretary Agriculture If the shall have reason to monopolizes or restrains

believe that such association foreign trade in interstate or commerce to such extent unduly any agricultural produce is upon thereof, such enhanced reason he shall serve respect, complaint stating charge in that association a his (Feb. 388.) 18, 1922, 57, 2,§ ch. 42 Stat. §

7 This court had the federal act and U.S.C. 292. 175 Capper-Volstead Golob, in Act" it "little before state's own cooper- group a farmers' need be where we held that qualify in order to formed under state law ative exemption. We said: statutory explicit organization meets the

An which puts requirements gaining which tion. in a more favorable bar- farmers exempt, regardless position in the manner posi- bargaining more favorable [it] secured the Golob, 267. at conspired alleged had

It was there that the farmers monopolize industry history Capper-Volstead Act, and the the reasons for enactment opinion. purposes noted it are set forth We serves particularly perceived to be in a that farmers been position, harsh economic processors

caught because of their who, and distributors the hands of position in the market and their rela- strength, were from the tive economic able take good profits might farmer a available from share whatever be production. agricultural Mktg. quoting Golob, 261, National Broiler Ass'n v. at from 816, 728, States, 825-26, L. Ed. 98 United 436 U.S. 2d S. (1978). join allowing We noted that Ct. farmers hoped cooperatives, Congress together to bolster their ability strength improve market their to weather adverse periods processors and to deal with and distribu- economic Mktg. citing tors, States, National Broiler Ass'n v. United Clayton supra, Act, dealt with where the farmers' exemption being introduced, was first later extended agricultural capital Act to include stock cooperatives. organizations of farmers

*8 Golob makes it clear that monopoly. obtaining This is combine with a view to Growers, v. & Smith Sunkist Inc. Winckler now settled. 305, Co., 82 S. Ct. 8 L. Ed. 2d Citrus Prods. 370 U.S. (1962). Maryland Coop. Pro States v. Milk United (D.D.C. 1956); ducers, see also Kin- 145 F. ^[176] Dairymen, Supp. Dairies,

nett v. Inc. 512 F. (M.D. 1981); Cannery, Ga. GVF Inc. v. Tomato California (N.D. 1981); Ass'n, Growers F. Cal. 1 P. (1978); Turner, & Areeda D. Antitrust Law § 228d Hof- Exemption Agricul- Favoring stedler, A Prediction: The Cooperatives Affirmed, tural Will Be 22 Ad. L. Rev. 455 (1969). pages said, The Winckler court at 28-29:

There can be no that doubt under these statutes the growers ultimately 12,000 California-Arizona citrus join together organization involved could collective into one for the processing marketing and of their fruit and products fruit officers without the business decisions of their being conspiracies. held combinations or The lan- Capper-Volstead specific guage permit- of the Act is ting preparing processing, efforts concerted farmers marketing products. market, for and of their single cooperative, growers through Instead of a these organization local first associations formed one area-wide (Sunkist) purposes. processing marketing When it was decided perform joint sep- basis, research and on organizations arate ations for were formed the interested associ- above. reasons outlined At later date one of (Exchange Orange) acquired by these was the Sunkist presently organization subsidiary. held as a The Lemon) (Exchange other is still owned the lemon- grower associations, all of whom are also member associ- ations of Sunkist.

Holding practical organization, effect this one the Court said hold otherwise impose grave legal consequences upon be would

organizational that are de distinctions of minimis mean- ing growers together and effect these who have banded processing marketing purposes pur- within the Clayton view the Acts. There is separate corporations no indication that the use of significance in economic itself or that outsiders consid- independent ered and dealt organizations. the three entities as Winckler, at 29. way at Court declared the end its decision no *9 coopera holding agricultural cases

detracted from earlier citing groups, conspiracies with outside tives liable 188, 181, L. Co., Ed. U.S. 84 States v. Borden 308 United Vly. (1939). Bar Potato also Treasure 182 See 60 S. Ct. (9th gaining Inc., Foods, Cir. 497 F.2d 203 Ass'n v. Ore-Ida 1974). suggestion con such a that there was There is no spiracy here. involved Milk, F.2d Farms, v. Yankee 635

In Fairdale Inc. (2d 1980), denied, 818, L. Ed. 2d 454 U.S. 70 Cir. cert. 1037 (1981), 88, that Ct. Circuit held 102 S. 98 Second they illegal attempts monopolize not unless involve to boycotting, picketing "predatory practices" such discriminatory pric membership harassment, coerced ing.

Bar-T, while it that it was forced out of busi- maintains charged prices for the of the Consolidated ness because acknowledges price setting marketed, milk it that which liability subject to alone is not sufficient to the defendants theory, Act. Their which under the Consumer Protection prevailed court, in the lower was monopoly power through predatory acts on its achieved its they part part NDA, and on the means of join forces with NDA. induced SMPA theory. that when in this It assumes There is fatal flaw organization acquired joined NDA, a domi SMPA Empire which SMPA had nance the Inland market area separate cooperative. enjoyed We are when was a it assumption. Rather evidence to sustain that shown no dairy by 1974, farmers in that, the number of evidence is dropped belonging Empire NDA, had the Inland area NDA Therefore, market control 122. whatever from 155 to 1974, was made to when the decision the area producers' milk above the federal of the raise the greater 1972, it minimum, it no than had been order cooperative. separate Since both SMPA was a when SMPA cooperatives, right agricultural each had the NDA were produce. Mary prices it would sell at which States, v. Ass'n United & Milk Producers land Va. (1960); 458, U.S. L. Ed. 2d 80 S. Ct. 847 Fairdale supra; Farms, v. Milk, Inc., Inc. Yankee Northern Cal. Supermarkets, v. Inc. Central Cal. Lettuce Producers (N.D. 1976). Coop., 413 F. Cal. cooperative Farms,

In Fairdale it was held associ organized purpose fixing prices ation for the sole is enti Capper-Volstead protection. rejected tled to The court suggestion although Supreme the United States Court Maryland had said in & Va. Milk Producers v. Ass'n supra, cooperatives may States, United that farmer fix the produce, Capper- at which will sell their gives only single cooperatives, Volstead Act not associations cooperatives, right fix See also Kinnett Dairymen, supra. *10 Dairies, Inc., Inc. v. cooperatives enjoyed

The fact that the here have a monopoly upon right not, itself, does cast cloud their willing the at which were to sell their milk.

Assuming power monopoly that NDA had substantial prices, power set its milk such was achieved as result not of the union SMPA but was a result the member- ship strength. Assuming, further, that certain acts NDA prior designed dissolution SMPA were to induce or coerce the members of SMPA to vote in favor the reorganization, assuming that these acts were serious enough predatory practices,4 joining to amount the together cooperatives of the two was the cause of Inc., Producers Ass’n, Inc., ing found Inc. threats, boycotts 348 F.2d 189 ^[545] 95 S. ^[476] 4As nonmember (E.D. (1966). 497 F.2d v. supra; Bergjans Ct. predatory practices ^[66] Central ^[314] F.T.C. Mo. Ass’n United district See (5th (1974). 1965), Cal. Lettuce Producers also Treasure producers ^[45] v. and interference with others. Cir. 216 n.11 judge (1964); aff'd, Farm 1965), observed have involved serious coercive conduct aimed at ^[368] into (9th Cir.), North Tex. Producers Ass’n States, Dairy cert. F.2d Vly. denied, Co. v. supra; Potato cooperative ^[679] cert. a footnote in Northern Cal. (8th Sanitary Coop., supra, 382 U.S. Fairdale denied, Bargaining Cir. See, e.g., Maryland & or 977, 1966); 419 U.S. Milk Farms, achieving 15 L. Ed. 2d cases where courts have Ass’n v. Producers, v. In re Metzger 999, Inc. Yankee monopoly through Washington 42 L. v. Ore-Ida Supermarkets, 468, Dairies, 241 F. Ed. 2d Va. Milk 86 S. Ct. Foods, bring Supp. Milk, Crab Inc., 273,

179 pursuant raising of the was done rise manage- cooperatives' marketing judgment made easily just judgment made have could been ment. That management and with the same of SMPA the former results. injury legal dam for which

It is established that the sought private ages must be one in a antitrust action directly proximately results from the violations Royster Theatres, Inc. v. American Drive-In of law. (2d Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., F.2d 246 268 (1959); Cir.), denied, E.V. Prentice cert. 361 U.S. 885 Plywood Mills, 252 473 v. F.2d Mach. Co. Associated (1958); (9th Cir.), v. denied, Fiumara cert. 356 U.S. (E.D. 1962); Supp. v. Inc., 204 F. Pa. Goldsmith Texaco (W.D.N.C. Supp. Ry., 201 F. St. Louis-San Francisco 1962); Ass'n, F. Molinas v. Basketball National (S.D.N.Y. 1961). Timberlake, Treble Dam 241 age E. Federal (1965). §

Antitrust Actions 20.01 Prentice Machine Co. The Ninth Circuit Court damage action, In a treble case stated the rule as follows: plaintiff probability the must establish with reasonable existence some causal connection between defend- wrongful anticipated ant's act and some loss of revenue. plaintiff brings damage suit A a treble antitrust who allege injury link to his which is direct must a causative incidental, his business than or which indicates that rather property "target ille or in the area" of the defendant's *11 gal Billy Baxter, Co., Inc. v. Coca-Cola 431 F.2d 183 act. (2d 1970). Corp. Co., Accord, v. Circle Floor 329 Cir. GAF (S.D.N.Y. 1971); Corp. Supp. RCA, SCM v. 407 F.2d F. 823 (2d Cir.), denied, 943, 461, L. Ed. cert. U.S. 23 2d 166 395 (1969); Inventions, v. Inc. Trico Productive 89 S. Ct. 2014 (2d 1955), Corp., denied, cert. 350 Prods. 224 F.2d 678 Cir. (1956); 818, v. 936, S. Ct. Knuth L. Ed. 76 301 U.S. 100 Dairy Supp. Coop. Ass'n, 48, F. 54 326 Erie-Crawford (W.D. 1971), citing Theatres, v. Schine Chain Bookout Pa. (2d 1958) Judge Learned 292, where F.2d 295 Cir. 253 Hand said:

[180]

"The action at bar will not lie because all claims under upon wrongs the Anti-Trust Acts rest done the suppression competition and must be initiated a party directly injured." whose commerce has been Ringsby Lines, Inc., Wilson v. Truck F. Cf. (D. 1970); Ready Johnson v. Co., Colo. Mix Concrete F. (D. 1970). Supp. 930 Neb. gives rules,

In accord with these RCW 19.86.090 a cause anyone damages injured of action for in who is busi- his property by through ness or a violation of RCW 19.86.020 provision, .060. Under this it is that clear a causal connec- injury. tion must be shown the between violation and the persuaded Whatever the inducements which the mem- join joinder NDA, bers SMPA to with did cooperatives' monopoly power increase the the in area. As Growers, was the in case Sunkist v. Inc. Winckler & Smith Co., 19, Citrus Prods. 370 U.S. 8 L. Ed. 2d 82 Ct. S. (1962), showing there no that the structure the organizations significance. being had economic There no showing per- connection, of a causal the trial court erred in mitting go theory. jury the case to on this theory

We turn to Bar-T's the the cooperative "pool loading", practice which, resulted the unacceptable by Depart- shows, record is considered Agriculture. ment of loading" Department Agri-

"Pool as understood accomplished by loading "targeted" culture, is market drop resulting price milk, unneeded in the blend which the farmer receives for his milk. While motives always apparent, for such activities are not evi- there was practice dence that is sometimes used in an effort persuade nonmembers that their interests would be better join cooperative. served were Raising prices "pool loading", is not whatever effect it authority have on the market. We shown no predatory practice. setting, itself, is a On the con- trary, very right Capper-Volstead Act, it is the Clayton designed pro- Act, as well 6 of the section *12 will be high, outsiders if too True, prices are tect.5 at lower market and sell milk into the bring encouraged of their of some local farmers depriving the prices, thus in the drop a customers, bringing about eventually and if there was here. But happened is what price. blend That outsider, NFO, by the "pool it was done loading", jury submit to the was therefore error to It Consolidated. prices theory raising that Bar-T's practice. in predatory a engaged verdict, the support the us no evidence to Finding before the action is reversed and complaint on the cross judgment is dismissed. Utter, Dolliver, C.J., Stafford,

Brachtenbach, and JJ., Dore, Williams, concur. by the constrained (concurring) J. am—I

Dimmick, holding. in present majority's state of the law to concur the Unfortunately, cause action under respondent has no of effect the operation of these circumstances due to marketing agricultural and federal Capper-Volstead Act laws. "unduly prices in question at issue 5The were enhanced" was not whether

lawsuit, although income over Bar-T farmers an account of their elicited from two experiencing purpose showing period years, a that farmers were not a of for the of nothing raising degree hardship of There sufficient of to warrant the reflected return on indicate that the income of these farmers the evidence to (whether by persons higher generally than that received investment and labor comparable position. entrepreneurs) in farmers or other Secretary authority reposes Agriculture Capper-Volstead Act monopolization has if it occurred cease and desist order finds issue a unduly & prices P. D. 7 U.S.C. 292. See Areeda are enhanced. § extent Turner, (1978); Supermarkets, Inc. v. Central Northern Cal. Antitrust Law 228 § 1976). (N.D. Coop., It Cal. 413 F. 993 n.9 Cal. Lettuce Producers court, Secretary appears No insofar we never issued such order. that the has authority ascertain, Secretary's proposed usurp in this area. can has ever Attorney General, upon places Washington's Act" "little responsibility Department Agriculture, director rather than the monopolization unduly determining enhanced as a result when have been issue, (RCW 24.34.020), event he is authorized in which or restraint of trade he, appears hearing, States like the United order. It after a a cease desist appropriate an order. Secretary Agriculture, to issue such has never found it including marketing laws, orders, Those federal have a strong today's However, historical basis. market quarters criticized all and should be reevaluated. For *13 example, Capper-Volstead provides Act that the Secre- tary Agriculture may against take action an association if "price any agricultural produce unduly is enhanced" monopoly Washington's reason or restraint of trade. places responsibility "little Act" on Attorney majority, General. As noted neither official has ever taken such action. These decisions not upon variety inadequate reasons, to act i.e., are based knowledge, resources, lack of etc. present

Practices never intended laws are occur- ring apparently being tacitly addition, In sanctioned. public becoming practices the through more aware of such Accordingly, may

media criticism. it be time for Congress reappraise agricultural marketing the federal allowing Legislature effect, laws their our state to do the same. April 5,

Reconsideration denied 1982. 48237-3. En Banc. March [No. 1982.] Appellants. R., In the Matter al, et