Legal Opinion
MATTER OF ADMIRAL WINE & LIQUOR CO. v. State Liquor Auth.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided February 23, 1984PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs, by reinstating the State Liquor Authority’s findings with respect to charge No. 2 and otherwise affirmed. The certified question should be answered in the negative.
Subdivision 3 of section 101-b of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law does not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act (Battipaglia v New York State Liq. Auth., 583 F Supp 8). The Appellate Division’s reliance on Matter of Mezzetti Assoc. v State Liq. Auth. (51 NY2d 761) and California Liq. Dealers v Midcal Aluminum (445 US 97) is misplaced…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Rice v. Norman Williams Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- William J. Mezzetti Associates, Inc. v. State Liquor AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Battipaglia v. New York State Liquor AuthorityDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1982
3Cited by10 opinions
- 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
- Bigelow v. Board of Trustees of GouverneurNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. State Liquor AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Ligreci v. HonorsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Long Island Lighting Co. v. MackAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.