Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LOUDEN HILL FARM v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION (03/22/66)

decided: March 22, 1966.

LOUDEN HILL FARM, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MILK CONTROL COMMISSION



Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, No. 57 Commonwealth Docket, 1965, in case of Louden Hill Farm, Inc. v. Milk Control Commission of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

COUNSEL

J. Brooke Aker, with him Paul H. Rhoads and Henry W. Rhoads, for appellant.

Anthony W. Novasitis, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, with him William D. Morgan, Assistant Attorney General, and Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Cohen. Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts. Mr. Chief Justice Bell and Mr. Justice Jones join in this dissenting opinion.

Author: Cohen

[ 420 Pa. Page 549]

Appellant is Louden Hill Farm, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation. Its registered office, principal place of business and producing farm is located at Dimock, Susquehanna County, and it operates cash-and-carry dairy stores for the retail sale of store-bought milk. It sells its product in reuseable glass containers in half-gallon and gallon quantities only.

Appellee is the Milk Control Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, an independent administrative agency created by the Milk Control Law,

[ 420 Pa. Page 550]

Act of April 28, 1937, P. L. 417, § 101 et seq., as amended, 31 P.S. § 700j-101 et seq.

Pursuant to a public hearing held on August 10 and 11, 1964, at which appellant presented evidence, appellee promulgated Official General Order No. A-643. This order is a comprehensive schedule of prices governing the sale of milk and allied products at every level. At the hearings, appellant contended, inter alia, that the price of store-sold milk should be lowered. By the official general order the Milk Control Commission reduced the prices of gallon and half-gallon containers of milk, and prescribed a larger differential between store-bought and home-delivered milk than in the prior order. The reduction and differential, however, were not as great as contended for by appellant.

Louden Hill Farm filed an appeal from the order to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County under the Milk Control Law of 1937, P. L. 417, § 901, 31 P.S. § 700j-901. This section limits appeal from orders of the Commission to "[a]ny person aggrieved." The appeal set forth appellant's position that the commission had not taken into proper consideration the economies of its method of production and marketing and it therefore requested a lowering of retail store prices and other changes.

Appellee presented a motion to dismiss the appeal contending appellant was not a party aggrieved within the meaning of the statute. The court below entered an order dismissing the appeal. From that dismissal, Louden Hill Farm took this appeal.

Who is a "person aggrieved" has been explained many times by this Court. In Pennsylvania Commercial Drivers Conference et al. v. Pennsylvania Milk Control Commission, 360 Pa. 477, 62 A.2d 9 (1948), this Court reiterated what it had said in Lansdowne Borough Board of Adjustment's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.