Cumberland Farms Northern, Inc. v. New Hampshire Milk Control Bd.
| Decision Date | 18 January 1963 |
| Citation | 104 N.H. 364,187 A.2d 388 |
| Parties | CUMBERLAND FARMS NORTHERN, INC. v. NEW HAMPSHIRE MILK CONTROL BOARD et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Burns, Bryant & Hinchey, Dover, and Arthur B. Stapleton, Providence, R. I., Robert E. Hinchey, Dover, for plaintiff.
William Maynard, Atty. Gen., and Alexander J. Kalinski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.
Booth, Wadleigh, Langdell, Starr & Peters, Philip G. Peters, Manchester, for Milk Dealers Association of New Hampshire as amicus curiae.
Gordon M. Tiffany, Concord, for Granite State Dairymen's Association as amicus curiae.
The plaintiff asks that certain orders of the Milk Control Board be suspended and for other relief, pending final determination of its appeal from these orders. We are authorized to grant the plaintiff's petition if, in our opinion, justice so requires. RSA 541:18; New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. State, 97 N.H. 555, 92 A.2d 408.
At the threshold of our inquiry, the defense raises the objection that the plaintiff has failed either to move for rehearing within the twenty-day limit under RSA 541:3 or to take appeals within the thirty-day period under RSA 541:6, from certain findings and orders of the Board. The findings in question, which need not be detailed here, were made on July 27, 1962, and the orders on November 26, 1962, and December 6 of the same year. The orders of November 26 revoked nine distributor's licenses previously issued to the plaintiff on October 29, 1962, and the second order denied the plaintiff's request for a license for out-of-state distribution. If it should be determined that no satisfactory excuse exists for the plaintiff's failure to move for rehearing or to appeal within the time limit provided by RSA 541:3, 541:6 respectively, it would ordinarily be barred from any relief under the present petition, whether it be considered as an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari. RSA 541:3, 541:6, 541:22; Nashua v. Public Utilities Commission, 101 N.H. 503, 148 A.2d 277.
However, timely motions for rehearing were filed under RSA 541:3 from two other orders made by the Board in the same proceedings. The first of these orders, which was dated November 2, 1962, denied the plaintiff's application for distributor's licenses for five retail outlets in New Hampshire. The second order of October 29, 1962, effective as of October 31, made pursuant to a hearing held on September 25, 1962, under RSA 183:7, was that all price controls and other regulations should continue in effect. Upon the denial of the motions for rehearing on these orders, an appeal in the form of the present petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cumberland Farms Northern, Inc. v. Pierce
...after hearing in this court, temporary relief sought during the pendency of the appeal was denied. Cumberland Farms Northern, Inc. v. N. H. Milk Control Board, 104 N.H. 364, 187 A.2d 388. However, on February 8, 1963, the plaintiff was authorized by order of this court after hearing, to uti......
-
New Hampshire Milk Dealers' Ass'n v. New Hampshire Milk Control Bd.
...A.2d 751; 2 Cooper, State Administrative Law 630 (1965), or may deny the request for suspension. Cumberland Farms Northern, Inc. v. New Hampshire Milk Control Board, 104 N.H. 364, 187 A.2d 388. See 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, s. 23.19, p. 386 The plaintiffs contend that unless the......
-
Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v. Whaland
...of the appeal. N. H. Milk Dealers' Ass'n v. N. H. Milk Control Bd., 107 N.H. 150, 218 A.2d 363 (1966); Cumberland Farms v. N. H. Milk Control Bd., 104 N.H. 364, 187 A.2d 388 (1963); 2 F. Cooper, State Administrative Law 629-30 (1965); see Annot., 24 L.Ed.2d 925 § 7 (1970); Note, Judicial Re......