Dairy and Dairy Products Law

Dairy Jurisprudence

Dairy jurisprudence further contextualizes many facets of the dairy industry. Cases and corresponding rulings for United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, federal appellate and circuit court jurisprudence, and Pennsylvania state jurisprudence are other pivotal jurisprudence are linked under this heading. 

United States Supreme Court

• Hillside Dairy Inc. v. Lyons, 539 U.S. 59 (2003) (holding California’s milk pricing and pooling regulations are not exempted from Commerce Clause scrutiny and not exempted from Privileges and Immunities Clause challenge)
• W. Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186 (1994) (holding a Massachusetts pricing order unconstitutional for discriminating against interstate commerce)
• Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 186 (1984) (holding only milk producers and handlers, not consumers, can obtain judicial review of milk marketing orders)
• Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456 (1981) (holding a Minnesota statute banning the retail sale of milk in plastic nonreturnable, nonrefillable containers does not violate the Equal Protection Clause and does not violate the Commerce Clause)
• Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168(1969) (holding Boston milk market regulation impermissible for differentiating market price based on location to Boston, instead of a permissible price adjustment for volume, market, and production differentials)
• Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews, 375 U.S. 361 (1964) (holding a portion of Florida Milk Commission regulations as an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce for reserving a substantial share of the local milk market to local producers)
• Lehigh Val. Co-op. Farmers, Inc. v. United States, 370 U.S. 76 (1962) (holding provisions of milk-marketing orders requiring non-pool handlers to make compensatory payments to Producers Settlement Fund as invalid and inconsistent with the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act)
• Brannan v. Stark, 342 U.S. 451 (1952) (holding deductions from an equalization pool meant for all milk producers in equity, to co-operative associations were invalid)
• H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525 (1949) (holding the New York Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets disapproving a New York state operation license for a Massachusetts milk dealer violates the Commerce Clause)
• Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288 (1944)  (holding petitioners, milk producers, have a right to a judicial examination of marketing order provisions)
• Pac. Coast Dairy v. Dep’t of Agric. of Cal., 318 U.S. 285 (1943) (remanded suit conducting a proceeding to revoke a relator’s license as a distributor of milk)
• Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Comm’n of Pennsylvania, 318 U.S. 261 (1943) (affirming milk dealer’s license should be refused by Milk Control Commission because the State can regulate prices charged to the United States)
• United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110 (1942) (reversed and remanded action by the United States to enforce an order against dairy producer to comply with classifying milk to establish a minimum price paid to producers for each class of milk)
• Wickard v. Fillburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)(holding an Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 amendment instituting a wheat marketing quota was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause)
• Milk Control Bd. of Pennsylvania v. Eisenberg Farm Prod., 306 U.S. 346 (1939) (holding a Pennsylvania statute requiring milk producers to obtain a license, file a bond for the protection of producers and to pay farmers the prices prescribed by the Milk Control Board unconstitutionally burdens interstate commerce)
• United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., 307 U.S. 553 (1939) (upholding Secretary of Agriculture’s injunction against two milk handlers to comply with new order mandating milk marketing compliance with milk moving in or directly burdening interstate commerce and covering milk in interstate commerce) 
• United States v. Carolene Prod. Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938) (holding the ‘Filled Milk Act’ as a constitutional exercise of the power to regulate interstate commerce by prohibiting shipment of skimmed milk with any fat or oil other than milk fat resembling milk or cream in interstate commerce) 
• Highland Farms Dairy v. Agnew, 300 U.S. 608 (1937) (ruling the Virgina Milk and Cream Act as not invalid, because each state has power to fix minimum price for milk in order to save producers)
• Borden’s Farm Prod. Co. v. Ten Eyck, 297 U.S. 251 (1936) (holding the New York Milk Control Law as not invalid, and equal protection of the law, by allowing dealers in unadvertised milk to sell fluid milk to stores at price of one cent per quart below that of milk sold under well-advertised trade name, and permitting stores to make resale at same differential)
• Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 (1935) (holding that the New York Milk Control Act established an economic barrier on interstate commerce by fixing different milk prices for similar milk produced within the state, compared to milk coming from out of state)
• Hegeman Farms Corp. v. Baldwin, 293 U.S. 163 (1934) (ruling the fourteenth amendment does not protect business against hazards of competition, courts will not interfere when order made under a state milk control act are not arbitrary fiats and therefore the milk dealer who brought suit should have utilized an administrative remedy before resorting to suit for injunction)

Other Federal

• Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc., 705 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2013) (reversing district court and ruled that the filed rate doctrine, providing that state law and some federal law cannot be used to invalidate a filed rate adopted by a federal agency, applies to minimum rates for raw milk set under FMMOs and does not bar dairy farmers from pursuing their claims)
• Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (holding the Milk Regulatory Equity Act, subjecting some large producer-handlers to payment requirements, did not apply with specificity to producer-handlers and is not a prohibited bill of attainder, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause and does not interfere with any due-process protected interest of dairy farmers)
• Fair Oaks Farm v. Kriegel, No. (M.D. Pa. Sept. 16, 2010) (holding out-of-state dairy farmers were entitled to a preliminary injunction for a Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board order that appeared to place a burden on out-of-state milk producers to the benefit of Pennsylvania) 
• White Eagle Co-op, Ass’n v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding an association of milk producers, who brought an action against the USDA for amending a regional milk marketing order, did not have standing to sue under Regulatory Flexibility Act, the USDA’s emergency rulemaking was not arbitrary and capricious, and the USDA’s milk end-use consideration for amendment did not violate the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act)
• Arkansas Dairy Co-op, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 576 F. Supp. 2d 147 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (holding dairy producers and producer cooperatives can bring suit under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge an interim rule amending milk marketing orders)
• Hettinga v. United States, 560 F.3d 498  (D.C. Cir. 2009) (holding the Milk Regulatory Equity Act provisions are not constitutionally prohibited bill of attainder, does not violate Equal Protection Clause and does not interfere with any due-process protected interest of dairy farmers)
• Lamers Dairy Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 379 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 2004) (holding the USDA’s failures to require Class III milk handlers to make compensating payments, and USDA’s failures to account for producer-handler’s out of pocket premium do not violate the producer-handler’s equal protection rights)
• Alto Dairy v. Venemen, 336 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding dairy farmers could assert a challenge to amendment based on Department of Agriculture’s failure to provide adequate notice of amendment change)
• Grant’s Dairy — Maine, LLC. v. Comm’r of Maine Dep’t of Agric. Food and Rural Res., 232 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2000) (holding Maine’s statutory scheme imposing state minimum prices upon dealers who already pay federal minimum prices under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act are not preempted under the Supremacy Clause and do not violate the dormant Commerce Clause)

Pennsylvania

• Fair Oaks Farm v. Kriegel, No. 1:CV-10-1591, 2010 WL 3715792 (M.D. Pa. 2010) (holding out-of-state dairy farmers were entitled to a preliminary injunction for a Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board order that appeared to place a burden on out-of-state milk producers to the benefit of Pennsylvania)
• Dairylea Co-op. Inc. v. Pennsylvania Milk Mktg. Bd., 3 A 3d 712 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010) (holding Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board’s decision to not fix the price of milk nor impose an over order premium was appropriate)
• Milk Mktg., Inc. v. Pennsylvania Milk Mktg. Bd., 161 Pa. Cmwlth. 10, 635 A.2d 1110 (1993)  (holding the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board has discretion to establish a market-wide pooling system, further finding that the board’s decision to not establish a market-wide pooling system is not an abuse of discretion)
• Babac v. Pennsylvania Milk Mktg. Bd., 531 Pa. 391, 613 A.2d 551 (1992) (holding telephone conference using a speaker telephone in a public meeting, for the purpose of Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board business does not violate “secrecy in public affairs” under the Sunshine Act) 
• Babac v. Pennsylvania Milk Mktg. Bd., 151 Pa. Cmwlth 579, 618 A.2d 1050 (1992)  (remanding for further proceedings to evaluate whether the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board erred when setting minimum wholesale prices using a delivery cost factor)
• Finucane v. Com., Pa. Milk Mktg. Bd., 529 Pa. 659, 604 A.2d 250 (1992) (holding retail minimum price controls of milk are not arbitrary, discriminatory or irrelevant)
• Clover Farms Dairy v. Brumbaugh, 586 F. Supp. 1227 (M.D. Pa. 1984) (granting a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the suspending of minimum price controls for low fat and skim milk, further holding public interest would be best served by requiring the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board to provide minimum due process prior to minimum price alterations) 

Other States

• Food Lion, LLC v. Dean Foods Co., No. 2:07-CV-188, 2016 WL 5951800 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 25, 2016) (denying the motion to certify class action litigation, over an agreement to lessen competition for sales of processed milk in the Southeast)
• Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., No. 5:09-CV-230, 2014 WL 2610613 (D. Vt. June 11, 2014)  (scheduling fairness hearing to determine whether Proposed Settlement for class members to determine whether the settlement is “fair, reasonable and adequate”)
• Edwards v. California Dairies, Inc., No. 1:14-MC-00007-SAB, 2014 WL 2465934 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2014) (denying a motion to compel to produce information pursuant to a “subpoena duces tecum”)
• Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., 748 F. Supp. 2d 323 (D. Vt. 2010) (granting motion to dismiss based on: 1) failure to state a claim; (2) Capper-Volstead Act immunity; (3) failure to satisfy Iqbal/Twombly’s pleading and plausibility standards; and (4) statute of limitations.)
• Marcus Dairy, Inc. v. Rollin Dairy Corp., No. CIV 3:05CV589(PCD), 2008 WL 4425954 (D. Conn. Sept. 24, 2008) (Connecticut licensed milk dealer vs. New York milk retailer transactional dispute over written supply agreement)
• Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc. v. Land O’Lakes, Inc., 253 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D. Conn. 2003) (denying motion to dismiss for putative class antitrust action for conspiracy to fix the prices of milk, cream, and butter)
• Minnesota Milk Producers Ass’n v. Glickman, 153 F.3d 632 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding Minnesota Secretary of Agriculture has discretion to decide “differential” pricing for Class I milk)
• Se. Milk Sales Ass’n, Inc. v. Swaringen, 290 F. Supp. 292 (M.D.N.C. 1968) (denying Southeast Milk Sales Association request for relief against the North Carolina Milk Commission for constitutionality of North Carolina state statute