Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Regulatory and Legal Updates
In the recent federal court decision from the Western District of Michigan, Capitol Beverage Co. v. Hornell Brewing Co., distributors nationwide received an important lesson about how narrowly defined statutory terms can threaten their significant investments in developing brand goodwill—especially when non-alcoholic brands enter the alcoholic beverage market.
This case involved Capitol Beverage, a…
A May 19, 2025 opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle Division) offers a compelling lesson for wineries and wine producers on how disputes over defective wine intersect with commercial liability insurance. The decision in Goose Ridge LLC et al. v. The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-01058…
Beverage distributors just gained major ground under the Missouri Franchise Act (MFA), thanks to a new opinion from the Eighth Circuit. In Pinnacle Imports, LLC v. Share A Splash Wine Co., LLC (link to opinion), the court reversed a district court decision that had let a supplier off the hook for terminating a distribution relationship…
The federal court decision in Dwinell, LLC v. McCullough, No. 2:23-cv-10029-SB-KES (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2025), offers an instructive reminder that the biggest hurdles for those challenging alcohol laws under the Dormant Commerce Clause are often not constitutional—but procedural. In this case, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the State of California,…
In an opinion that will likely not stand for long, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in Shady Knoll Orchards & Distillery v. Vollendroff handed down a ruling (link to opinion) denying dormant Commerce Clause claims that bear a striking resemblance to the facts and issue under the Supreme Court’s decision…
Justice Brandeis, writing for the Supreme Court in State Board of Equalization v. Young’s Market Co. (1936), offered a (then) foundational interpretation of the Twenty-first Amendment, asserting a remarkably broad scope of state authority over alcohol. The case involved plaintiffs who argued that California’s $500 licensing fee for importing beer was unconstitutional unless it…
When bottles break in transit or on the production line, the resulting cracks often run deeper than glass—they cut straight through commercial relationships, landing suppliers and buyers in federal court. That’s what happened in MacH Flynt, Inc. v. Veritiv Operating Co., a case recently decided by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of…
Another federal court has weighed in on the ongoing war over direct-to-consumer wine shipping, and Ohio has scored a victory in Block v. Canepa. After a Sixth Circuit remand and a refusal by the Ohio Attorney General to seek Supreme Court review, the district court recently issued its final ruling, handing down a decision that…
In a recent legal skirmish that should catch the attention of distributors nationwide, Cavalier Distributing Company secured a temporary restraining order (TRO) against MicroStar Logistics LLC in an Ohio federal court. This case underscores the critical importance for distributors to scrutinize their contractual obligations, especially concerning keg deposits, to safeguard their operations and financial health.…
If you’ve been following along with dormant Commerce Clause litigation in the alcohol space, the 9th Circuit’s recent ruling in Day v. Henry should grab your attention. If you haven’t been tracking these cases, you’re missing a fascinating evolution of law where state alcohol regulations keep running into constitutional roadblocks, and courts attempt to chart…
