Sani-Dairy, a Division of Penn Traffic Co. v. Yeutter

Third Circuit

Sani-Dairy, a Division of Penn Traffic Co. v. Yeutter

91 F.3d 15, 1996 WL 427870

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 31, 1996

Docket95-3304,95-3304

StatusUnknown

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 F.3d 15 (Sani-Dairy, a Division of Penn Traffic Co. v. Yeutter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sani-Dairy, a Division of Penn Traffic Co. v. Yeutter, 91 F.3d 15, 1996 WL 427870 (3d Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Several Pennsylvania dairy farmers and a dairy cooperative 1 challenge the validity of the Secretary of Agriculture’s regulations governing the marketing of fluid milk in the New York-New Jersey milk marketing area. 2 Plaintiffs allege that the Secretary’s regulations, promulgated under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 7 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., violate 7 U.S.C. § 608c(5)(G), which states:

No marketing agreement or order applicable to milk and its products in any marketing area shall prohibit or in any maimer limit, in the ease of the products of milk, the marketing in that area of any milk or product thereof produced in any production area in the United States.

The district court found that the Secretary’s regulations governing the marketing of fluid milk in the New York-New Jersey milk marketing area, as applied to plaintiffs, constituted a prohibited economic trade barrier to milk producers and sellers outside the New York-New Jersey milk marketing area. See Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, Inc. v. United States, 370 U.S. 76, 91-98, 82 S.Ct. 1168, 1175-1180, 8 L.Ed.2d 345 (1962). The district court awarded plaintiffs restitution and interest. We will now affirm, and in so doing adopt the reasoning of the district court expressed in Sani-Dairy v. Yeutter, 935 F.Supp. 608 (W.D.Pa.1995) and Sani-Dairy v. Espy, — F.Supp.-, NO. CIV.A 90-222J, CIV.A. 90-236J, 1993 WL 832147 (W.D.Pa. Dec.30, 1993).

1

. As set forth by the district court in its December, 1994 opinion at footnote one “By Memorandum Order dated October 29, 1991, (Docket No. 22), the Secretary's motion to dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiff Sani-Dairy was granted because Sani-Daiiy, a milk producer, or "handler" as that term is defined by 7 C.F.R. 1002.7 failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before seeking judicial review.”

2

. The marketing area is defined in 7 C.F.R. § 1002.3.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Several Pennsylvania dairy farmers and a dairy cooperative 1 challenge the validity of the Secretary of Agriculture’s regulations governing the marketing of fluid milk in the New York-New Jersey milk marketing area. 2 Plaintiffs allege that the Secretary’s regulations, promulgated under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 7 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., violate 7 U.S.C. § 608c(5)(G), which states:

No marketing agreement or order applicable to milk and its products in any marketing area shall prohibit or in any maimer limit, in the ease of the products of milk, the marketing in that area of any milk or product thereof produced in any production area in the United States.

The district court found that the Secretary’s regulations governing the marketing of fluid milk in the New York-New Jersey milk marketing area, as applied to plaintiffs, constituted a prohibited economic trade barrier to milk producers and sellers outside the New York-New Jersey milk marketing area. See Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, Inc. v. United States, 370 U.S. 76, 91-98, 82 S.Ct. 1168, 1175-1180, 8 L.Ed.2d 345 (1962). The district court awarded plaintiffs restitution and interest. We will now affirm, and in so doing adopt the reasoning of the district court expressed in Sani-Dairy v. Yeutter, 935 F.Supp. 608 (W.D.Pa.1995) and Sani-Dairy v. Espy, — F.Supp.-, NO. CIV.A 90-222J, CIV.A. 90-236J, 1993 WL 832147 (W.D.Pa. Dec.30, 1993).

1

. As set forth by the district court in its December, 1994 opinion at footnote one “By Memorandum Order dated October 29, 1991, (Docket No. 22), the Secretary's motion to dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiff Sani-Dairy was granted because Sani-Daiiy, a milk producer, or "handler" as that term is defined by 7 C.F.R. 1002.7 failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before seeking judicial review.”

2

. The marketing area is defined in 7 C.F.R. § 1002.3.

Sani-Dairy, a Division of Penn Traffic Co., Inc. John P. Strittmatter, D/B/A Strittmatters Dairy Delbert Thomas Ed Thomas Lowell Friedlin Arthur Bloom James L. Harteis v. Clayton Yeutter, Secretary of Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets, State of New York. Milk Marketing, Inc. v. Clayton Yeutter, Secretary of Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture, Clayton Yeutter, Secretary of Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture and United States of America

91 F.3d 15 (Third Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 F.3d 15, 1996 WL 427870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sani-dairy-a-division-of-penn-traffic-co-v-yeutter-ca3-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack