Archives for May 2020

Total Wine Wins Injunction in Indiana District Court on Residency Challenge

Recently, the Indiana District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued a preliminary injunction in support of Total Wine’s Complaint against  Indiana’s residency statute that requires 60% ownership by 5 year Indiana residents in order to hold a package store permit.   Previously, the Indiana ATC had denied the application based on the residency statute…Read More

Additional Retailer Shipping Lawsuit Filed in Rhode Island

I neglected to cover another federal lawsuit by Mssr. Tanford & Epstein filed late in 2019.   They have filed a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to Rhode Island law related to retailer shipping claiming laws that allow local retailers to deliver but not out of state retailers is a violation of the Constitution.  Their complaint can…Read More

Illinois State Court Issues Strong Ruling for the Illinois Beer Industry Fair Dealing Act

Illinois Circuit Court Judge Dorothy French Mallen conducted a five-week trial in a dispute from the litigious Shelton Brothers and their attempt to void distribution deals in the state of Illinois.  This case has a long history and originally started with a claim by Shelton Brothers against a distributor it sought to terminate seven years…Read More

No Oral Argument Yet in 8th Circuit Retail Shipping Case, State Files Supplemental Authority Notice With Court

The 8th Circuit has not yet scheduled oral arguments on the dormant Commerce Clause challenge by a Florida retailer to the Missouri local delivery law. Recent the state of Missouri filed a supplemental authority letter with the court letting them know of the recent ruling by the 6th Circuit for the state of Michigan in…Read More

State of North Carolina Files Motion To Dismiss Retail Shipping Case

The state of North Carolina filed its motion to dismiss against the recent complaint by an out of state retailer challenging laws that permit North Carolina retailers to perform some local delivery functions as a violation of the dorman Commerce Clause. The state’s brief sought dismissal because the plaintiffs lack standing, the plaintiffs’ complaint fails…Read More