Cumberland Farms Inc v. LaFaver

USCA1 Opinion












United States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 93-2066

CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

JOHN LAFAVER, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees,

____________________

BOSTON MILK PRODUCERS, INC., WAYNE HAPSWORTH,
PRISCILLA ROWBOTHAM, AGRI-MARK, INC.,
HAROLD LARRABEE AND ADRIAN WADSWORTH,
Intervenors, Appellees.
____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________

Before

Selya, Boudin, and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________

Joel C. Martin, James B. Haddow, Petruccelli & Martin, and
________________ _________________ _____________________
Sheldon A. Weiss on brief for appellant.
________________
Janet M. McClintock, Assistant Attorney General, Michael E.
_____________________ ___________
Carpenter, Attorney General, and Cabanne Howard, First Assistant
_________ ______________
Attorney General on brief for appellees.
Jerrol A. Crouter, Richard A. Spencer, Drummond Woodsum Plimpton
_________________ __________________ __________________________
& MacMahon on brief for Boston Milk Producers, Inc., Wayne Hapsworth,
___________
Priscilla Rowbotham, Agri-Mark, Inc., Harold Larrabee and Adrian
Wadsworth.
____________________

August 24, 1994
____________________




















Per curiam. The Maine Dairy Farm Stabilization
Per curiam
___________

Act, 36 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 36, 4541-4547 (West Supp.

1993), imposes a tax on all packaged fluid milk sold in Maine

irrespective of the origin of the milk, but only Maine dairy

farmers are eligible for what amounts to a rebate from the

Maine Dairy Farm Stabilization Fund. Cumberland Farms, which

sells to Maine consumers milk produced by out-of-state dairy

farmers, filed suit against various Maine officials, alleging

that the tax-and-rebate scheme violates the restrictions on

state power inherent in the Commerce Clause. The district

court denied Cumberland Farms' motion for summary judgment

and granted that of the defendants, using the following

reasoning as the linchpin of its analysis: "It is true that

the proceeds [of the tax] are . . . used to benefit Maine

milk producers, but current precedents permit this kind of

economic protectionism." See Cumberland Farms, Inc. v.
___ _______________________

LaFaver, 834 F. Supp. 27, 32 (D. Me. 1993).
_______

We believe that with the intervention of West Lynn
_________

Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 114 S. Ct. 2205 (1994), which struck
______________ _____

down a similarly discriminatory tax-and-rebate scheme imposed

by Massachusetts, the reasoning of the district court is no

longer tenable. Defendants argue that West Lynn is not
__________

dispositive because the Massachusetts dairy tax was collected

primarily from out-of-state milk sellers while the Maine tax

is collected primarily from in-state milk sellers. The Court



-2-
2















has rejected such quantitative distinctions in the past, see
___

New Energy Co. v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269, 276-77 (1988)
________________ _______

("Varying the strength of the bar against economic

protectionism according to the size and number of in-state

and out-of-state firms affected would serve no purpose except

the creation of new uncertainties in an already complex

field."), and we are compelled to do the same in this

instance. Accordingly, we deny the parties' request for oral

argument, reverse the decision of the district court, and

remand the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor

of the plaintiff and to conduct any necessary additional

proceedings in a manner consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.
__________



























-3-
3