The case S&H Independent Premium Brands East, LLC v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (SJC-13541) deals with the interpretation of Massachusetts’ alcohol distribution laws and whether protections afforded to in-state entities apply to out-of-state companies holding certain certifications.
S&H Independent Premium Brands East and West, both based outside Massachusetts, held certificates of compliance under Massachusetts General
In a classic Granholm v. Heald situation involving a lack of parity between in-state and out-of-state distilleries, Washington state allows in-state distilleries the privileges of direct sale and shipment of their liquors to Washington residents and restricts out-of-state distilleries from doing the same.
Under the Washington laws for alcohol production and sale, Washington distilleries can
We will look back to find that the greatest result of Tennessee Wine’s “test” allowing “each State leeway to enact the measures that its citizens believe are appropriate to address the public health and safety effects of alcohol use and to serve other legitimate interests” comes from the ability of lower courts to kick the
“However, the Court in Lebamoff did not hold that direct ship restrictions are always constitutional. The concurring opinion, which had the support of a majority of the panel, emphasized that the Court upheld Michigan’s statute because “the plaintiffs ha[d] not sufficiently refuted” the defendant’s evidence indicating that the challenged statute “serves the public health.”
In
The Circuits are by and large falling into line regarding the implications and procedures of Tennessee Wine when Dormant Commerce Clause challenges are brought against State alcohol-related laws and regulations. They are rejecting the notion that a summary dismissal of challenges is acceptable and requiring a fact-finding assessment involving evidence greater than conclusory assertions made
The old adage of taking a multiple of the gross profits earned by a beer distributor is the typical response you’ll receive in asking about the fair market value of the distribution rights for a given brand. We hear it a lot as a casual methodology employed between parties in negotiating value and potentially setting
The appeal results from a challenge in Ohio. An out-of-state wine retailer and an in-state wine enthusiast brought suit against the state of Ohio looking for a judgment that the inability of the out-of-state wine shipper to obtain a retail license to ship wine direct to consumers in Ohio without establishing a physical presence in
A Michigan Federal Court has ruled that the motion to dismiss stage is no place to test the merits of claims that a wine supplier’s termination of a distribution agreement with a wine distributor.
Cana Distributors, a Michigan based wholesaler of wine, sued PortoVino, a supplier of wine (link to complaint), alleging that PortoVino’s termination
A Court’s grant of an injunction to a beer distributor prohibiting Constellation from moving its brands to a new wholesaler in Washington State has set the stage for a fully briefed and soon to be argued 9th Circuit case that is certain to set an important precedent for interpreting state beer franchise laws.
That’s because
Context is crucial. That’s the takeaway from this recent opinion out of a New York Federal Court dismissing consumer claims asserting that Coca Cola’s 12-pack Topo Chico branded Margarita Hard Seltzer packaging misleads consumers to thinking the product contains tequila and is made from Mexican mineral water. This opinion provides excellent information and analysis for
