Duke Molner Wholesale Liquor Co. v. Martin
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtFourt, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment which in effect declared a rule of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to be proper and constitutional.
In the third amended complaint for declaratory relief and injunction plaintiffs sought a declaration that rule 28 (the rule in dispute) was unconstitutional and could not be enforced against the plaintiffs. A statement was filed by the parties pursuant to a pretrial conference order which substantially set forth the facts and the issues to be determined. That statement set forth the nature of the case, the plaintiffs’ contentions, the defendants’…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Cal. Drive-In Restaurant Assn. v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Knudsen Creamery Co. v. BrockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Black v. Magnolia Liquor Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Weiss v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Mercurio v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage ControlCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Uniontown Area School District v. Pennsylvania Human Relations CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- State Ex Rel. Hart v. ParhamSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1966
- Associated Creditors' Agency v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Organization of Deputy Sheriffs of San Mateo County, Inc. v. County of San MateoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Matossian v. FahmieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.