Milnot Co. v. Douglas

452 F. Supp. 505, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17157
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia
DecidedJune 16, 1978
DocketCiv. A. 77-2526
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 452 F. Supp. 505 (Milnot Co. v. Douglas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. West Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Milnot Co. v. Douglas, 452 F. Supp. 505, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17157 (S.D.W. Va. 1978).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DENNIS R. KNAPP, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Milnot Company instituted this action praying for a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendants from embargoing or otherwise restricting the marketing in this state of Milnot Dairy Vegetable Blend (Milnot), a food product produced by plaintiff.

In November, 1977, defendants embargoed and removed from three Kroger stores in Parkersburg, West Virginia, a substantial quantity of Milnot and halted all further distribution of Milnot in the state. Defendants contend that their power to embargo and halt sales of Milnot is predicated upon the provisions of Chapter 19, Article 11, Section 2, of the Code of West Virginia, as amended, (W.Va.Code, 19-11-2), which states:

§ 19-11-2. Manufacture or sale of filled milk.
It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, offer or expose for sale or exchange, or have in his possession with intent to sell, offer or expose for sale or exchange, either in bulk or in containers, sealed or unsealed, under any name whatever, any condensed, evaporated, concentrated, powdered, dried or desiccated milk, cream or skimmed milk to which has been added or with which has been blended or compounded any fats or oils other than milk fats, producing what is known as filled milk. 1

This action followed, plaintiff contending that the above statute is, on its face, and as applied to plaintiff, repugnant to the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

This Court, with the consent of the parties, advanced this cause for a final determination on the merits.

A joint stipulation of facts has been filed by the parties and is offered as evidence in this case in support of their respective positions. It states as follows:

“1. The Milnot Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is qualified to do business in West Virginia, having its principal place of business at 120 West St. John Street, Litchfield, Illinois.

*507 2. The Milnot Company engages nationwide in the processing, marketing, distribution and sale of the food product hereinafter described under the trade name or label of Milnot.

3. Milnot consists of a blend of fat-free milk and vegetable (soya) oil, supplemented and fortified with Vitamins A and D. Mil-not contains sweeteners, stabilizers, flavorings and vitamin concentrates but no milk fats, or solids other than milk solids.

4. Milnot falls within the classification of “filled milk” as set forth in W.Va.Code, 19-11-2, which statute further prohibits the manufacture or sale thereof in West Virginia.

5. The composition of natural milk is such that the non-fat solid portion is separable from the butterfat portion. The nonfat solid portion when separated either in whole or in part from the butterfat is commonly referred to as “skim milk” or “non-fat milk solids.”

6. The removal of the butterfat from natural milk does not necessarily render the resulting product, skim milk, injurious to health.

7. Skim milk is a wholesome, nutritious food source when processed in accordance with proper standards and procedures.

8. The concentration of milk, milk derivatives, milk products and Milnot by the process known as ‘evaporation’ does not affect adversely the nutritional value of such products.

9. Soya or soybean oils are wholesome, nutritious and useful food sources when processed in accordance with proper standards and procedures.

10. The addition of soya or soybean oils to skim milk or non-fat milk solids does not necessarily render the resulting product injurious to health.

11. Milnot is prepared and processed in accordance with proper standards and procedures which assure and preserve a safe and nutritive product. It contains no deleterious or harmful matter; and does not necessarily adversely affect the health of individuals consuming such product.

12. Milnot is processed in the following manner:

a. The butterfat is removed from natural milk. A heat treatment is then applied to the resulting non-fat milk solid which pasteurizes and stabilizes the protein therein in order to produce a smooth viscous product. Concentration of the product is then accomplished by the removal through evaporation of over half of the water, and soya or soybean oil is then added in place of the butterfat, producing the product Milnot. Each 13 fluid ounce container of Milnot is then fortified with 2,000 USP units of Vitamin A and 400 USP units of Vitamin D. Thereafter, the product is homogenized, which serves to inhibit fat separation and to aid digestion.
b. Milnot is then tested several times for total solids and fat content to insure compliance with claims on the label on standardization. The container of Milnot is hermetically sealed. Sterilization heat is applied as a final stage in the process.

13. Plaintiff Milnot Company operates modern, sanitary and hygienic plant facilities in the states of Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Illinois, which plants are in compliance with all local, state and federal health standards.

14. Milnot, and each component ingredient thereof, is a nutritive substance and is of such quality as to comply fully with all applicable governmental nutrition standards.

15. Milnot is nutritionally beneficial to persons whose diet requires the elimination of butterfat and to infants unable to tolerate or adapt to butterfat.

16. The label attached hereto as Exhibit No. 1 properly sets forth the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer or distributor and contains an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count.

*508 17. The chemical analysis of Milnot is as follows:

1 Can

13 FI. Oz.

Calories 493

Fats 24.65 gm

Carbohydrates 39.88 gm

Protein (Animal) 28.42 gm

Total Mineral Salts 5.66 gm

Calcium 972 mg

Phosphorus 754 mg

Potassium 1117 mg

Magnesium 94 mg

Chlorine 943 mg

Sodium Salt 464 mg

Copper .102 mj

Iron .363 mj

Thiamine (Bj) .232 mj

Riboflavin (B2 or G) 1.60 mg

Niacin .83 mg

Ascorbic Acid 4.50 mg

Vitamin A 2000 us:

Vitamin D 400 us:

18. The composition of the vegetable fat within Milnot is calculated to be:

Fatty Acid Composition

Saturated 17.3% Linolenic 1.3%

Total Oleic 58.5% Other .1%

Linoleic 22.8% Arachidonic 0%

19.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Legato Vapors LLC v. Cook
193 F. Supp. 3d 952 (S.D. Indiana, 2016)
Augusta Towing Co. v. United States
5 Cl. Ct. 160 (Court of Claims, 1984)
Strehlow v. Kansas State Board of Agriculture
659 P.2d 785 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
452 F. Supp. 505, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milnot-co-v-douglas-wvsd-1978.