Connection lost
Server error
Horne v. Department of Agriculture Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that a government program requiring raisin growers to physically surrender a portion of their crop constituted a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment, requiring just compensation, and that this rule applies to personal property just as it does to real property.
Legal Significance: This case affirmed that the Fifth Amendment’s per se takings rule for physical appropriations applies equally to personal property, not just real property, and rejected the idea that retaining a contingent interest in future proceeds can negate a physical taking.
Horne v. Department of Agriculture Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to issue marketing orders to stabilize agricultural markets. The California Raisin Marketing Order required growers to set aside a percentage of their crop as “reserve raisins,” transferring title to a government-controlled Raisin Administrative Committee. The Committee could dispose of these raisins as it saw fit, with any net proceeds (after expenses and subsidies) returned to the growers. In the years at issue, the reserve requirement was 47% and 30%. Marvin and Laura Horne, raisin growers and handlers, refused to comply with the reserve requirement. The government fined them the market value of the non-compliant raisins plus a civil penalty. The Hornes challenged the fine, arguing the reserve requirement was an unconstitutional physical taking of their private property without just compensation. The Ninth Circuit ruled against them, holding that the Takings Clause affords less protection to personal property than real property and that the growers’ retained interest in potential proceeds meant it was not a per se taking.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a government mandate requiring raisin growers to physically relinquish a percentage of their annual crop for government use constitute a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment, even if the property is personal rather than real and the owners retain a contingent interest in its future value?
Yes. The government’s requirement that raisin growers physically turn over a portion Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteu
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a government mandate requiring raisin growers to physically relinquish a percentage of their annual crop for government use constitute a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment, even if the property is personal rather than real and the owners retain a contingent interest in its future value?
Conclusion
The decision solidifies the principle that direct physical appropriation of any private Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labor
Legal Rule
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states "nor shall private Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
Legal Analysis
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, established three key points. First, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A government mandate requiring growers to physically surrender a portion of