long as large quantities of milk are available below those prices from neighboring states.
23. The plaintiff is suffering immediate and irreparable harm as a result of the Commission's minimum into-the-store price controls.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Commission has no control over into-the-store prices where the stores take delivery outside of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or process the milk themselves. Milk Control Commission v. Penn Fruit Company, 410 Pa. 242, 188 A.2d 705 (1963).
2. In Pennsylvania there are health and quality controls by regulation other than under the Milk Control Act. (An Act defining milk and its derivatives, prohibiting ts adulteration and regulating its labeling, sale and serving and imposing powers and duties on the Department of Agriculture, Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 31 § 520-1 et seq.; and Act to safeguard human health and life by providing for the issuance of permits to and regulation of persons and entities selling milk and milk products and imposing duties on the Secretary of Agriculture, Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 31 § 645 et seq.; Commonwealth ex rel. Allegheny County v. Shenot, 207 Pa.Super. 351, 218 A.2d 76 (1966).
3. Pennsylvania has an Unfair Sales Act. Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 73 § 213 prohibits the sale of any commodity at less than cost with the intent of unfairly diverting trade from or otherwise injuring a competitor or with the result of deceiving any purchaser or prospective purchaser, substantially lessening competition, unreasonably restraining trade or attempting to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
4. Federal controls exist to protect the farmer, with respect to the price which must be paid him, as to any milk which is marketed in the Philadelphia area.
Insofar as the foregoing do not cover the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law requested by plaintiff, such requests (Document 12) are denied.
The plaintiff has not established that there is a substantial question that the Pennsylvania Milk Control Law, 31 P.S. § 700j-101 ff., as a whole constitutes a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution or that Pennsylvania lacks constitutional authority to provide for minimum wholesale prices covering sales to stores and sub-dealers. Cf. Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310, 316-319, 60 S. Ct. 517, 84 L. Ed. 774 (1940); See Nebbia v. People of State of New York, 291 U.S. 502, 54 S. Ct. 505, 78 L. Ed. 940 (1934); Milk Control Board of Pa. v. Eisenberg Farm Products, 306 U.S. 346, 59 S. Ct. 528, 83 L. Ed. 752 (1939); Milk Control Comm. v. Battista, 413 Pa. 652, 198 A.2d 840 (1964), cert. den. 379 U.S. 3, 13 L. Ed. 2d 22, 85 S. Ct. 75 (1964). Furthermore, the preliminary injunction as here requested would not preserve the status quo as it has existed since 1964. (Commission Orders A632 and A633). See Warner Bros. Pictures v. Gittone, 110 F.2d 292 (3rd Cir. 1940). Plaintiff is entitled to reconsideration by defendant of the prices challenged by its motion as promptly as is feasible, particularly of the minimum wholesale prices for into-the-store sales in Areas 1 and 1A prescribed in Schedule 1 at page 3 of its Orders A678 and A679 where such prices are subject to the maximum quantity discounts prescribed in Provision 5 of Section E of Orders A632 and A633. If such prompt reconsideration, after the hearing contemplated by paragraph 9 of the Stipulation filed on February 16, is not given by the Commission, plaintiff may reapply to the court for further relief.
And now, this 20th day of February 1967, upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Discussion, it is hereby Ordered that the plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction be and and the same is Denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.