State of Maine v. Dan Brown
2014 ME 79
| Me. | 2014Background
- Brown operated a Blue Hill farm selling raw milk and products from a farm stand and markets; he refused to obtain a milk distributor’s license, a food establishment license, or to label raw-milk containers; the State sued for licensing and labeling violations and penalties; the State’s regulatory regime shifted in 2009 to the Quality Assurance Division which interpreted licensing requirements broadly; Brown was informed repeatedly (2011) that licensing was needed and refused; the trial court entered summary judgment against Brown and imposed civil penalties totaling $1000 and costs.
- Brown previously relied on a 2006 statement from the State Veterinarian that no license was needed if sales were not advertised; after enforcement changes, the State maintained Brown needed a license and labeling was required.
- The Blue Hill Local Food Ordinance (2011) exempts local producers from municipal licensure/inspection when selling directly for home consumption, but the court held it does not exempt state licensing or preempt state health laws; the court construed the ordinance narrowly to apply only to municipal licensing/inspection.
- The court found that equitable estoppel does not bar enforcement because there was no misrepresentation by the State; public health concerns justify enforcement.
- Labeling and penalties issues were resolved in favor of the State: Brown’s sign did not satisfy labeling requirements; penalties were assessed per violation, not per day.
- The judgment affirmed, upholding licensing, labeling, and municipal-ordinance interpretations and the penalties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable estoppel bar to licensing | Brown | Brown claims estoppel due to 2006 advice not to license | Estoppel does not apply; no misrepresentation; public health policy weighs against estoppel |
| Blue Hill ordinance preemption | State | Ordinance exempts him from state licensing | Ordinance limited to municipal licensure/inspection; does not preempt state licensing rules |
| Labeling of unpasteurized products | State | Sign substantial | Sign not substantial; labeling required by statute; summary judgment for labeling upheld |
| Penalties for violations | Penalties per occurrence; per-violation penalties allowed under statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Pelletier v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 964 A.2d 630 (Me. 2009) (equitable estoppel against government requires misrepresentation and balancing considerations)
- Town of Union v. Strong, 681 A.2d 14 (Me. 1996) (estoppel against government depends on agency, function, and public policy)
- Bell v. Maine, 711 A.2d 1292 (Me. 1998) (equitable estoppel against government standards)
- Dasha v. Me. Med. Ctr., 665 A.2d 993 (Me. 1995) (misconduct required for estoppel defense)
- Waterville Homes, Inc. v. Me. Dep’t of Transp., 589 A.2d 455 (Me. 1991) (estoppel and government action considerations)
- City of Auburn v. Desgrosseilliers, 578 A.2d 712 (Me. 1990) (example of estoppel context in municipal actions)