Rohrer v. Milk Control Board

Pa.

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Citations: 322 Pa. 257, 186 A. 336, 1936 Pa. LEXIS 794

Decision Date: 6/26/1936

Docket Number: Appeal, No. 259

Jurisdiction: PA

Bluebook Citation: Rohrer v. Milk Control Board, 322 Pa. 257, 186 A. 336, 1936 Pa. LEXIS 794 (Pa. 1936)

More Cases: Pa. decisions from 1936

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 73 decisions

Citing decisions

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1930s1940s1950s1960s1980s1990s2010s

Courts citing this case

Pa.20

Pa. Super. Ct.13

Dauphin Cty. C.P.5

Cal.2

Northampton Cty. C.P.2

Pa. Dep't J.2

Most recently cited by10

2016West Philadelphia Achievement Charter Elementary School v. School District of Philadelphia Pa.
2016W. Phila A.C.E. Sch. v. S.D. of Phila. Pa.
1990Finucane v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board Pa. Commw. Ct.
1982Jackson v. Independent School District No. 16 Okla.
1969Velasquez v. Depuy Dauphin Cty. C.P.
1967Sylvan Seal Milk, Inc. v. Milk Control Commission E.D. Pa.
1965Swisher v. Brown Colo.
1965Chartiers Valley Joint Schools v. Allegheny County Board of School Directors Pa.
1964Maine Milk Commission v. Cumberland Farms Northern, Inc. Me.
1964Milk Control Commission v. Battista Pa.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Rohrer v. Milk Control Board, Appellant.

Judges

Before Kephart, C. J., Schaefer, Maxey, Drew, Linn, Stern and Barnes, JJ.

Attorneys

Charles J. Margiotti, Attorney General, with him Harry Polihof, Deputy Attorney General, and W. F. Daniels, Deputy Attorney General, for Commonwealth.
Thomas Raeburn White, with him W. Hensel Brown and Richard C. Bull, for appellee.
Francis Biddle, of Barnes, Biddle & Myers, for interested parties, under Rule 61.
Thomas W. Spofford, with him Charles Edwin Fose, for interested parties, under Rule 61.
Geo. Ross Hull, for interested parties, under Rule 61.

majority Me. Chief Justice Kephart,

Opinion by

Me. Chief Justice Kephart,

The majority of the members of this court, Mr. Justice Schaffer and Mr. Justice Drew dissenting, agree that the decision certified to us by the Superior Court should be reversed on the dissenting opinion written by President Judge Keller of that court, reported in 121 Pa. Superior Ct. 281. Mr. Justice Schaffer and Mr. Justice Drew are of opinion that the decision of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the opinion of Judge Parker of that court.

Judgment reversed.