H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, Commissioner of Agriculture & Markets of New York
United States Supreme Court
336 U.S. 525, 69 S. Ct. 657, 93 L. Ed. 865 (1949)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc. (Hood) (plaintiff) was a Massachusetts company that distributed milk and milk products to Boston. In addition to the milk it received from Hood and other milk producers, Boston received approximately 8 percent of its milk supply from producers located in New York. Hood had three milk-receiving plants in New York and sought to open an additional milk plant in Greenwich, New York. Hood wanted to open the new plant because its existing milk-receiving plants were having difficulty handling milk in the time required by the Boston health authorities. Du Mond (defendant), the commissioner of Agriculture & Markets of New York, denied Hood’s application for a license to build the new plant. Du Mond sought to promote the sale of milk from in-state New York producers by denying the building of a new plant by an out-of-state milk producer. Du Mond found, among other things, that Hood’s new plant would divert supply from other in-state producers and subject in-state producers to competition. The lower courts upheld New York’s denial of Hood’s application to build a new plant, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jackson, J.)
Dissent (Black, J.)
Dissent (Frankfurter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
