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.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. KREIDER DAIRY FARMS (04/16/80)

April 16, 1980

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, MILK MARKETING BOARD, PLAINTIFF
v.
KREIDER DAIRY FARMS, INC. AND NOAH W. KREIDER AND SONS, DEFENDANTS



Original opinion of February 26, 1980, Reported at 50 Pa. Commw. 560

Before Honorable David W. Craig, Judge

Opinion on Exceptions

In this case addressed to our original jurisdiction, by an adjudication and decree nisi of February 26, 1980, defendants were enjoined, at the instance of the Milk Marketing Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (board), from selling milk at retail from defendants' second store on Route 72, Manheim, Pa. at prices below the minimum prices established by the board for that milk marketing area.

Defendants duly filed exceptions, and the parties have stipulated of record that the exceptions may be decided without further briefs or oral argument.

In addition to taking exception to the decree nisi, defendants except to Finding of Fact No. 5 and to Conclusions of Law Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

The sole contested finding, No. 5, reads as follows:

5. There is also a smaller tract of approximately 80 acres, approximately 3.6 miles distant from the larger tract by public road, on which there is located a double house (in which an employee resides), a barn, and feed crops, but no cows or milk-processing operations.

Because the key question of the case is whether milk produced on the larger tract has ever "left the producer's farm" before it is sold at the store on the smaller tract, the material elements of the contested finding are that (1) the smaller tract is separated from the larger tract by a public road, and (2) there are no cows or milk-processing operations on the smaller tract. Because there is no question but that those factual elements are fully supported by the record, the exception to Finding of Fact No. 5 must be dismissed.

The contested conclusions of law are those which held, in terms of the statute, that the milk sold at the second store has left the producer's farm (Conclusion No. 2), so that sales at the second store are not exempt

[ 50 Pa. Commw. Page 569]

    from minimum prices (Conclusion No. 3), and therefore the sales at the second store, for retail prices below the minimums, are in violation of law (Conclusion No. 4).

These conclusions and the decree nisi necessarily follow from application of the findings of fact to the terms of the statute, as this court must interpret it.

Therefore the remaining exceptions will be dismissed and a ...


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.