Legal Opinion
Midcal Aluminum, Inc. v. Rice
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 26, 1979No. Civ. 17992PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
REYNOSO, J.
The recent Supreme Court opinion of Rice v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeals Bd. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 431 [146 Cal.Rptr. 585, 579 P.2d 476], which invalidated California’s price maintenance laws relating to retail sales of distilled spirits, gives rise to this litigation. By writ of mandate Midcal Aluminum, Inc., seeks a determination as to the validity of the fair trade and price posting laws regulating the sale, both wholesale and retail, of wine in this state. We hold, as a logical axle of the Rice wheel, that the fair trade and price posting laws relating to wine are invalid—at…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- United States v. Topco Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Fisher v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- Jack R. Battipaglia and Bacchus Selections Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, Peerless Importers Inc., Defendant-IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Heir v. DegnanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
- Hampton v. RoweAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.