Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Pac. States Box & Basket Co. v. White - 296 U.S. 176, 56 S. Ct. 159 (1935)

Rule:

When legislative action which deals with a subject clearly within the scope of the police power is called in question, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of the existence of that state of facts, and one who assails the classification must carry the burden of showing by a resort to common knowledge or other matters which may be judicially noticed, or to other legitimate proof, that the action is arbitrary. The burden is not sustained by making allegations which are merely the general conclusions of law or fact.

Facts:

Defendants set official standards for the packaging of raspberries and strawberries, requiring them to be contained only in hallocks. Plaintiff manufacturer, who produced containers other than hallocks, challenged the regulation, on the ground that the same violated the rights of the plaintiff guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. The district court denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the bill. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Was the regulation in question violative of the law or the Constitution? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the regulation was an appropriate exercise of the police power of the State. The State had the power to prescribe standard containers in order to facilitate trading, to preserve the condition of the merchandise, to protect buyers from deception, or to prevent unfair competition. The court refused to consider the wisdom of the regulation but found that the requirement was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The prescribed standard did not conflict with any established law of Congress, nor did it grant a monopoly to hallock manufacturers. Moreover, the grant of a monopoly was not void if it was an otherwise appropriate exercise of police power. The order did not burden interstate commerce. The rebuttable presumption of the existence of facts sufficient to justify the exertion of police power attached to regulations of an administrative body as well as legislative acts.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates