Legal Opinion
California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided March 3, 1980No. 79-97PublishedCited by 847 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Powell
In a state-court action, respondent Midcal Aluminum, Inc., a wine distributor, presented a successful antitrust challenge to California’s resale price maintenance and price posting statutes for the wholesale wine trade. The issue in this case is whether those state laws are shielded from the Sherman Act by either the “state action” doctrine of Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943), or § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment.
I
Under § 24866 (b) of the California Business and Professions Code, all wine producers, wholesalers, and rectifiers must file fair trade contracts or price schedules with the…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Craig v. BorenSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Parker v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Wisconsin v. ConstantineauSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Goldfarb v. Virginia State BarSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by847 opinions
- Hernandez v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- South Dakota v. DoleSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode IslandSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. DiasSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
842 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.