From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hammerberg v. Mercier

Superior Court Hartford County
Jun 3, 1943
12 Conn. Supp. 67 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1943)

Opinion

File No. 68973

Grave doubt exists of the constitutionality of certain provisions of the law governing milk marketing.

MEMORANDUM FILED JUNE 3, 1943.

Jack Rubin, of New Haven, for the Plaintiff.

Schatz Weinstein, of Hartford, for the Defendant.

Memorandum of decision on motion to expunge.


The following matter contained in the complaint is expunged:

In paragraph 9 from the first sentence, the words: "other dealers will be encouraged or impelled by economic pressure to refuse to comply with the provisions of the order"; in paragraph 10, all of the allegations contained therein except the following: "Complete justice cannot be accorded among the dealers of milk in market Area No. 1 unless the defendant named in this complaint is forced to comply with the order. Inequities have and will result from a failure of defendant to comply with said Order No. 1. This will lead to disorder and chaos in milk marketing both in Area No. 1 and the State"; paragraph 11 is expunged in its entirety. Other than as specified supra, the motion is denied.


Summaries of

Hammerberg v. Mercier

Superior Court Hartford County
Jun 3, 1943
12 Conn. Supp. 67 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1943)
Case details for

Hammerberg v. Mercier

Case Details

Full title:DONALD O. HAMMERBERG, MILK ADMINISTRATOR vs. HERMAN E. MERCIER

Court:Superior Court Hartford County

Date published: Jun 3, 1943

Citations

12 Conn. Supp. 67 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1943)

Citing Cases

Miss. Milk Comm. v. Vance

E. 688; Albritton v. City of Winona, 181 Miss. 75, 178 So. 799, 115 A.L.R. 1436; Baldwin v. Seelig, 294 U.S.…