Finucane v. Commonwealth

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the Board’s denial of Petitioner’s application for reconsider*90ation. Specifically, I disagree with the majority’s characterization of Petitioner’s argument, that dealers and retailers must show a threshold need for a price increase based upon aggregate milk sales, as “merely questioning] the Board’s procedure.” (Op. at 87.) Rather, I believe that the Milk Marketing Law (Law), Act of April 28, 1937, P.L. 417, as amended, 31 P.S. §§ 700j — 101 through 700j-1204, and this Court’s decisions in Lily Penn Food Stores, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Milk…