PRICE INCENTIVES FOR COMMERCIAL FRESH TOMATOES

Hedonic price models are estimated to determine if there are incentives to supply higher quality tomatoes. Price premiums are associated with extra-large tomatoes originating from shipping points located closer to consumption points. Price differences between mature-green and vine-ripe tomatoes are not significant. Vine-ripe tomatoes are favored by consumers in the summer while mature-green tomatoes are favored the rest of the year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture should consider changing the present tomato grading system, which is based on shape and smoothness, to include a flavor indicator based on harvest maturity.Tomato quality, Hedonic prices, Demand and Price Analysis,

TAXATION-FEDERAL ESTATE TAX-INCLUSION IN GROSS ESTATE OF TRANSFER BY WHICH SETTLOR RETAINED POWER TO TERMINATE

In 1928, decedent established a trust giving his wife the income for her life, with a remainder to his three children. Decedent, as co-trustee, retained power to pay portions of the corpus to his wife and to change the trust on his approval of a written request by his wife. When the estate challenged the commissioner\u27s assessment of a tax deficiency, the Tax Court, relying on the power to invade the principal, included the trust corpus in the gross estate under section 811(d)(2) of the I.R.C., no reduction being allowed for the wife\u27s life estate since no method of evaluating it was offered. On appeal to the circuit court of appeals, it was originally decided that the value of the life estate should be excluded on proof of its value by appropriate probability tables. Later, on rehearing, held, the opinion of the Tax Court affirmed. The entire trust was taxable because of the retention of the power to amend. Had the right to invade the corpus, viewed by the court as a power to terminate, been the only power retained, the value of the wife\u27s life estate would have been properly excluded. Du Charme\u27s Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (C.C.A. 6th, 1948) 169 F. (2d) 76

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION-USE AGAINST DEFENDANT OF RECORDS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY FEDERAL LAW

Petitioner Shapiro, a produce wholesaler, was served under the authority of the Emergency Price Control Act with a subpoena duces tecum ordering him to produce certain duplicate sales invoices required to be kept by government regulation. The petitioner produced the records but claimed a constitutional privilege. When subsequently tried in the district court on charges of making tie-in sales in violation of the price regulations, petitioner pleaded immunity under section 202 (g) of the Emergency Price Control Act. His plea was overruled; conviction followed and was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. On certiorari to the Supreme Court, held, affirmed. Since records required to be kept under a valid regulation are public documents, these were not included within a statutory immunity which Congress intended to be co-terminous with the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Shapiro v. United States, (U.S. 1948) 68 S.Ct. 1375

CATTLE FEEDER PERCEPTIONS OF LIVESTOCK MANDATORY PRICE REPORTING

Because of the significant investment in the mandatory price reporting program (MPR) by the USDA and by packers, it is important to understand what producers believe about its effectiveness. This study reports results from a survey of feedyards located primarily in Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, and Iowa. Results indicate a diversity of opinion regarding MPR effectiveness. On average producers are neutral to negative regarding the value of MPR to them. Interestingly, feedlot characteristics appear to have little systematic relationship to the manager's perceptions regarding the usefulness of MPR.Livestock Production/Industries,

COURTS--PROCESS--NONRESIDENT MOTORIST SERVICE STATUTE--SERVICE ON DRIVER AS WITHIN PROVISION PERMITTING SERVICE ON OWNER

While in Arkansas, appellee, an Illinois resident, drove a third party\u27s automobile and was involved in a collision in which plaintiff\u27s intestate was killed. Plaintiff instituted a negligence action in an Arkansas court against appellee, who had previously returned to Chicago, by service and notification pursuant to the Arkansas nonresident motorist service statute. Appellee appeared specially and moved to quash the service as ineffective under the statute. On appeal from the lower court\u27s decision sustaining the motion, held, affirmed. The statutory language which permitted service on a nonresident owner did not allow service on a nonresident driver. Kerr v. Greenstein, (Ark. 1948) 212 S.W. (2d) 1

CRIMINAL LAW-FAILURE OF ACCUSED TO TESTIFY--EXTENT OF JUDGE\u27S INSTRUCTION IN FEDERAL COURTS

In a prosecution against defendant for violation of the White Slave Traffic Act, the trial judge instructed the jury that defendant\u27s failure to testify should not be considered by them in determining his guilt or innocence. On appeal from conviction, held, there was no error in this instruction. United States v. Fleenor, (C.C.A. 7th, 1947) 162 F. (2d) 935

FACTORS AFFECTING FEEDER CATTLE PRICE DIFFERENTIALS

Feeder cattle prices are determined by the interaction of many factors. This study uses 1986 and 1987 Kansas feeder cattle auction data to investigate the impact of a wide variety of physical characteristics, many of which have not been used in previous studies on feeder cattle prices. Unlike previous studies, this analysis explicitly incorporates changes in feeder cattle market fundamentals during the data collection period and also allows price differentials to vary by sex and weight. Weight, weight-squared, lot size, lot size-squared, health, muscling, frame size, condition, fill, breed, presence of horns, and time of sale are significant factors affecting feeder cattle prices on any given day. Several physical traits also exhibit different seasonal price impacts.Demand and Price Analysis, Livestock Production/Industries,

EFFICIENT CASH AND HEDGED ENTERPRISE COMBINATIONS IN FEEDER CALF BACKGROUNDING OPERATIONS

Livestock Production/Industries,

EVIDENCE--CRIMINAL LAW--CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED\u27S CHARACTER WITNESS CONCERNING ACCUSED\u27S PRIOR ARREST

On trial in a district court for bribing a federal revenue agent, defendant called five witnesses to testify to his good reputation. During cross-examination by the district attorney, the character witnesses were asked: \u27\u27Did you ever hear that on October 11, 1920, the defendant was arrested for receiving stolen goods? The trial judge overruled the objection to the question, and the witnesses answered in the negative. The prosecutor exhibited a paper record of this arrest to the court. The judge instructed the jury that the question was to test the standard of the character evidence only, not to establish the incident of arrest as a fact affecting the probability of defendant\u27s guilt. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, following affirmance by the circuit court of appeals held, affirmed. Michelson v. United States, (U.S. 1948) 69 S.Ct. 213

DISCOVERY -- SCOPE OF EXAMINATION --ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE UNDER OHIO AND FEDERAL PROCEDURES

During a deposition arising out of a suit against the Cleveland Transit System for its alleged negligent operation, Hyde, defendant\u27s general manager, was ordered under subpoena duces tecum to produce reports of the defendant company and answer questions disclosing all the busses ( the numbers, and names and addresses of the drivers) from 11:30 P.M. September 25, 1944, to 12:15 A.M., going south on East 152 Street. Hyde and the company attorney who possessed the accident reports refused to produce them or answer questions concerning them, claiming that the reports were within the attorney-client privilege. The deponents were taken into technical custody, and they petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of appeals for Cuyahoga County. Judgment was for defendant, the court holding the reports privileged and allowing the writ to issue. On appeal, held, affirmed. Reports of an accident, including the names and statements of the witnesses, are privileged when turned over to the company\u27s legal department. In re Hyde, (Ohio 1948) 79 N.E. (2d) 224