Opinion ID: 1565085
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: are any provisions of the kentucky milk marketing law severable

Text: The trial judge declared the entire Milk Marketing Law unconstitutional. Appellants (then defendants) did not properly argue or address the question of severability to the trial court, only raising the issue after filing a notice of appeal. [11] Under the circumstances, the issue is not properly before us. Hoy v. Newburg Homes, Ky., 325 S.W.2d 301 (1959). However, we are constrained to state that an examination of the existing Kentucky Milk Marketing Law, specifically KRS 260.705, which sets out the purpose of the Act, clearly shows that the prohibited marketing practices deal with pricing and selling of milk and milk products. KRS 260.705(1)(a) prohibits the sale at less than cost thereof; KRS 260.705(1)(b) prohibits the sale of such products at different prices in different geographical areas; KRS 260.705(1)(c) prohibits rebates, etc., when such products are sold. KRS 260.705(3) limits the amount of advertising material that shall be given to the retail stores. KRS 260.705, in its entirety, relates to the selling of milk, milk products, and the sales price, the method of selling, and advertising provided by sellers. All of the practices it prohibits and restricts deal with the ability of a seller to merchandise and sell his products in a free economy. Its provisions quite simply restrict the free market and, in so doing, violate the public's interest and are arbitrary. The entire Act, from its definition section to its penalty section, has the purpose of enforcing the provisions of KRS 260.705. We conclude, therefore, that all parts of the statute are essentially and inseparably connected, and not severable.