Legal Opinion

Mt. Hood Beverage Co. v. Constellation Brands, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 2003No. 72882-8PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

These consolidated cases require us to determine whether chapter 19.126 RCW, insofar as it regulates the contractual rights and obligations of wine suppliers and distributors to one another, violates the dormant commerce clause by unfairly discriminating against out-of-state suppliers, and, if so, whether the twenty-first amendment to the United States Constitution prevents it from being struck down.

We affirm the superior courts in these cases and hold that the express exemption of in-state wine suppliers in chapter 19.126 RCW facially violates the dormant commerce clause because it protects…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. DiasSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. New Energy Co. of Indiana v. LimbachSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Healy v. Beer InstituteSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Bostain v. Food Exp., Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Bostain v. Food Express, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Kaintz v. PLG, INC.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2008

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API