United States District Court Judge Garaufis in Brooklyn has ruled that New York’s beer franchise statute protects distributors from arbitrary termination. The Court ruled that an importer is a “successor brewer” under the current law and as such is not allowed to terminate its wholesaler without showing good cause. The importer had attempted to terminate its [...]
Posted February 8, 2011 by admin under Alcohol Regulation
Update: Since the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) continues to have its position on direct shipping interpreted wrongly across the country, they have sought to clarify it. Recently, they have written to one attorney asking for clarity to avoid stating that the the full NCSL had endorsed a wine model shipping legislation. Click here for the letter. [...]
Posted January 2, 2011 by admin under 21st Amendment, Alcohol Regulation, Dormant Commerce Clause, Supreme Court
The Michigan courts have clearly held that anyone wanting to sell alcohol in Michigan has to abide by Michigan law. In a very strongly worded opinion, a Michigan State Court has upheld the decisions of the Michigan Liquor Control Commission finding that the proposed MillerCoors contract violated several aspects of Michigan alcohol law. In his [...]
Posted July 1, 2010 by davetate under 21st Amendment, Alcohol Regulation, Alcohol Review
UPDATE…….. ARIZONA WINS The 9th Circuit has issued a ruling. The state of Arizona wins, volume caps and face to face purchase requirements are permissible. Read the ruling here. (OLDER POST) On September 15th, the 9th Circuit heard oral arguments of a wineries appeal of an Arizona district court’s decision upholding the state’s winery laws. Click here if you would like to hear the [...]
Posted April 13, 2010 by admin under 21st Amendment, Alcohol Regulation, Alcohol Review, Dormant Commerce Clause
In a very forceful advisory, the California Attorney General has made it clear that California law does not allow suppliers to micromanage and control distributor licensees. This guidance apparently went to over 600 importers and suppliers. The staff of the attorney general actually spent time reviewing the proposed supplier contracts to state law and were very concerned [...]
Posted February 15, 2010 by admin under 21st Amendment, Alcohol Regulation, Alcohol Review, Guest Columns
Well the sordid ten year history of the TFWS case is over. There will be no appeal to the United States Supreme Court. In order to save the state money from attorneys fees, the state will not appeal in exchange for not having to pay attorney fees. In a fee settlement agreement filed with the court the [...]
Posted January 13, 2010 by admin under 21st Amendment, Alcohol Regulation, Alcohol Review, Supreme Court
UPDATE: The Supreme Court has denied certiorari in this 6th Circuit matter. Cert denial can be found here. Update: TN brief below. Supreme Court to decide whether to take this the week of September 29, 2009. A pairing of lawyer and wine connoisseur has lead to the U.S. Supreme Court being asked whether limitations imposed [...]
Posted October 5, 2009 by admin under 21st Amendment, Alcohol Regulation, Alcohol Review, Dormant Commerce Clause, Supreme Court
Washington Liquor Control Board filed its notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit on the issue of paying nearly all of the attorney fees to Costco despite winning 7/9 of the litigation. Their notice is here. Also, the Washington Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association filed their notice of appeal as well. Their appeal is here. The [...]
Posted September 17, 2009 by admin under 21st Amendment, Alcohol Regulation, Alcohol Review
Very disappointing but not surprising decision from 4th Circuit today ruling against the state on the Maryland laws on price posting , price holdand quantity discount ban. This decision seemed to be a certainty when an entire new panel of 4th Circuit judges came out for oral argument. Personally, I think the court just wanted to [...]
Tags: 4th Circuit, Costco, liquor regulations, Maryland, NBWA, oral arguments, Sherman Anti trust
Posted July 15, 2009 by admin under 21st Amendment, Alcohol Regulation, Alcohol Review, Supreme Court
I am not sure how long this order-of-dismissal will stand but apparently a judge in South Carolina decided that the laws against minor’s possesion of alcohol or consuming alcohol are unconsititutional. This will go to a higher court for a second opinion. Here is an article about this decision.
Posted July 15, 2009 by admin under Alcohol Regulation