Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
521 U.S. 457 (1997)

- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., a large producer of California tree fruits, along with 15 other handlers, (plaintiffs) challenged the generic advertising provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 that forced them to pay for advertisements promoting California tree fruits as “wholesome, delicious, and attractive to discerning shoppers.” The tree-fruit handlers alleged that the generic advertising provisions violated their First Amendment rights, and they disagreed with the content of some of the advertisements. The district court ruled against them, but the circuit court of appeals ruled for them, concluding that the generic advertising provisions were unconstitutional. Specifically, the circuit court of appeals found that the government had failed to prove that the generic advertising was more effective than individual advertising in increasing consumer demand for the California nectarines, plums, and peaches.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Souter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 990 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.