Ponitz graduation 2012
Cars and Parts Swap Meet
2012 senior class photos
Home > Blogs > Uncorked > Archives > 2008 > October > 15
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Out-of-state wine retailers win key ruling in Michigan
Out-of-state wine retailers have won a key ruling in Michigan, according to Wine Spectator.
Could this ruling have an impact on Ohio’s wine laws?
Actually, the legal landscape involving the shipping of wine has been fermenting madly. Here’s a summary offered up via email by the folks at Wine & Spirits Daily:
DIRECT SHIPPING BY WINERIES. The most recent case in this arena is the Indiana case which the face-to-face requirement, whereby consumers must purchase wine at the winery before it can be shipped to him or her, was upheld. That case is on appeal. In Kentucky, the face-to-face requirement was deemed unconstitutional, though the volume cap bans were upheld. That case is on appeal to the 6th Circuit. There is a challenge to winery volume limits Massachusetts, which is ongoing. And in Tennessee, the challenge to the state’s ban on out-of-state direct shipping to consumers and retailers, in addition to quantity limits on amounts shipped across state lines, is pending on appeal.
DIRECT SHIPPING BY RETAILERS. Of course, the newest legal challenge has been brought with the help of the Specialty Wine Retailers Association, and that involves the ability of retailers to ship to consumers, i.e. extending Granholm to retailers. The court in Michigan recently struck down the state’s ban on out-of-state retailers shipping to consumers, as it was declared unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. That decision was stayed to give the state time to appeal, so the current law remains in force through that process. Previously, a court in New York dismissed the retailers’ challenge on the ban on out-of-state retailers to ship to consumers. It is on appeal and pending. In Texas, in what we’ve called the bizarro decision, the ban on out-of-state direct shipping was declared unconstitutional, but it kept the part of Texas law that says out-of-state retailers have to purchase their product from Texas wholesalers. That appeal is also pending.
ANTITRUST. In Maryland, the court has struck down the state’s post and hold law (where prices have be posted in advance and held for a period of time), but pending appeal. And of course in Washington, the court struck down post and hold but kept most of the rest of the Washington state law. That case is finito.
So that gives you a legal eagle eye’s view of what we’ve seen. Stay tuned for a lot more, because this thing isn’t over.
Indeed.
TweetComment on thisI'm no longer accepting comments here.
Go to my facebook page and click Like to comment.
Go to my facebook page and click Like to comment.
