Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Local Food Systems

Exclusion From Farmers' Market Did
Not Violate Rights

Marne Coit
Research Fellow

Summary of Decision

In Salmon v. City of Cadillac, No. 263586, 2005 WL 3416119 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2005), the Court of Appeals of Michigan affirmed the trial court's determination that plaintiffs' suit against the farmers' market was frivolous, and found no basis for plaintiffs' claims that the farmers' market violated antitrust laws, plaintiffs constitutional rights, or committed intentional interference of a business relationship.

Background

For many years, plaintiffs Shirley and Donald Salmon participated in a farmer run market in the city of Cadillac. After a series of discussions between the participating farmers, the city of Cadillac, and the Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service, a decision was reached to formalize the organization and the Cadillac Area Farmers Market, LLC (CAFM) was formed in 2003. The rules of the CAFM "required vendors to be residents of Wexford County or a county immediately adjacent to Wexford County, and requir[ed] 'farm checks' of vendors to ensure that produce marketed was grown on vendor's farm." Id. at *1. However, an exception to the residency requirement was to be made for vendors who had participated prior to the date of incorporation. See id. The CAFM was scheduled to meet twice a week from the beginning of July through the end of October and the city of Cadillac issued a permit for the use of a parking lot for this purpose. See id. at *2.

In August of 2003, plaintiffs filed suit against the CAFM and the city, claiming that they were being excluded from the market and that this violated the Right to Farm Act (RTFA), was an attempt to establish a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Act, and that required farm checks violated their constitutional rights. See id.

On October 20, 2003, the parties reached an agreement which was approved by the trial court, the terms of which allowed plaintiffs to sell at the market without being members of CAFM and in which plaintiffs agreed to abide by the market rules, including submitting to farm checks. See id. However, the parties continued to have problems, and continued with litigation. In April of 2005, the trial court granted summary disposition to defendants, "explaining that the court failed to see that a 'controversy' existed after the parties had agreed plaintiffs could participate in the farmers' market." Id. at *3.

Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that continuing the litigation after the parties reached a settlement was frivolous and affirmed the grant of summary disposition to defendants. See id. at *10.

The case was decided on December 13, 2005; this summary was posted February 12, 2008.