Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
NATURAL MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION et al. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., 1943 — 317 U.S. 423 · caselaw · US
Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
NATURAL MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION et al. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al.
317 U.S. 42363 S. Ct. 359·Supreme Court of the United States·1943
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
NATURAL MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION et al. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al.
No. 385.
Argued December 16, 17, 1942.
Decided January 11, 1943.
Mr. Philip S. Ehrlich for appellants.
Messrs. Henry Heidelberg and Herbert Levy, with whom Mr. John J. O’Toole was on the brief, for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
In this ease appellants contend that the San Francisco Milk Ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it requires non-pasteurized raw milk sold in San Francisco to be certified by, and to conform to standards prescribed by, the Milk Commission of the San Francisco Medical Society, instead of by a public board or officer, while at the same time prohibiting the sale of all other non-pasteurized milk, including “guaranteed raw milk” which appellants allege is the same as certified raw milk. Subsequent to the trial of the case, the Milk Commission of the San Francisco Medical Society determined that non-pasteurized milk could not be certified by it as free from harmful bacteria, and promulgated an order accordingly, effective January 15, 1939. This fact, which apparently was not called to the attention of the Supreme Court of California, renders moot the federal questions raised by appellants, since all milk sold in San Francisco, not certified by the Milk Commission of the Medical Society, is required by the ordinance to be pasteurized, and since appellants do not by this suit challenge the validity under the Fourteenth Amendment of the pasteurization requirement. In order that the state court may make proper disposition of the case in the light of the fact that the federal questions cannot be decided here, we vacate the judgment, without costs to either party in this Court, and remand the cause to the Supreme Court of California for such further proceedings as it may deem appropriate. Florida v. Knott, 308 U. S. 507; Washington ex rel. Columbia Broadcasting Co. v. Superior Court, 310 U. S. 613; Missouri ex rel. Wabash Ry. Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 273 U. S. 126.
So ordered.