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.

RALPH REDMOND v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (09/13/76)

decided: September 13, 1976.

RALPH REDMOND, ON BEHALF OF FRANKLIN COUNTY MILK CONSUMERS, APPELLANT
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, MILK MARKETING BOARD, APPELLEE



Appeal from General Order A-794 of The Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board dated November 19, 1975, effective November 26, 1975.

COUNSEL

Thomas J. Finucane, for appellants.

Howard D. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, with him Walter J. Sullivan, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, and Blatt. Judges Kramer and Rogers did not participate. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 369]

This is an appeal from Official General Order A-794 of the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board (Board) which established prices for the South Central Milk Marketing Area, Area No. 4.

In response to petitions, the Board held public hearings concerning the revision of minimum milk

[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 370]

    prices for the South Central Area of Pennsylvania. Pursuant to Section 801 of the Milk Control Law (Milk Law),*fn1 pre-order conferences were held. At these conferences, Board staff prepared a tentative order, designated A-794, which was introduced along with findings of fact to the Board.

The Board, by a vote of two to one, adopted tentative Order A-794 and posted that order to become effective November 26, 1975.

Ralph Redmond (Appellant) appealed Order A-794 on behalf of himself and certain Franklin County consumers. Appellants were denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis and pursuant to Rule 89 of the Court, agreed with Appellee, Board, upon a statement of facts withdrawing seven of the eleven exceptions. Consequently, we have four procedural questions for disposition:

"1. Did the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board abuse its discretion in refusing a subpoena requested ...


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.