Joseph Finch Co v. Kittrick Ben Burk v. Same Joseph Seagram Sons v. Same Hinrichs Distilled Products v. Same Arrow Distilleries v. Same 8212 256
| Decision Date | 03 January 1939 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 252,s. 252 |
| Citation | 59 S.Ct. 256,83 L.Ed. 246,305 U.S. 395 |
| Parties | JOSEPH S. FINCH & CO. et al. v. McKITTRICK, Attorney General of Missouri, et al. BEN BURK, Inc., v. SAME. JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, Inc., et al. v. SAME. HINRICHS DISTILLED PRODUCTS v. SAME. ARROW DISTILLERIES, Inc., v. SAME. —256 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri.
Messrs. Thomas Kiernan and Joseph M. Hartfield, both of New York City, for appellants.
Mr. Edward H. Miller, of Jefferson City, Mo., for appellees.
The State of Missouri approved April 8, 1937,1 an Act, sometimes called the Missouri Anti-Discrimination Act sometimes the Missouri Retaliation Act. It provides in Section 4, Mo.St.Ann. § 4525h—4, p. 4689: 'The transportation or importation into this state, or the purchase, sale, receipt, or possession herein, by any licensee, of any alcoholic liquor manufactured in a 'state in which discrimination exists' is hereby prohibited, and it shall be unlawful for any licensee to transport or import into this state, or to purchase, receive, possess, or sell in this state, any alcoholic liquor manufactured in any 'state in which discrimination exists' as herein defined.' The statute defines what exactions, prohibitions and restrictions imposed by laws of the several states shall be deemed 'discriminations' imposed upon the importation into the several states of alcoholic liquor manufactured in Missouri; requires the Attorney General to determine whether there exists therein an such discrimination; and, if he find any such discriminatory law, to specify the same in a certificate to be filed with the Supervisor of Liquor Control. The Supervisor is directed to publish notice of the certificates and to advise all licensees that it will be unlawful to import into Missouri or to purchase, receive, sell or possess in Missouri any liquor manufactured in a discriminating state. Pursuant to these provisions, the Attorney General filed, in October, 1937, certificates with the Supervisor declaring that the States of Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Massachusetts are 'states in which discriminations existed' as defined by the Missouri statute.
To enjoin enforcement of this provision of the Missouri statute, these five suits were brought, in the federal court for the western district of the state, against the Attorney General and the Supervisor of Liquor Control. Each bill charges that the provision violates the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3; Amend. 14.2 In four of the cases the bill alleges that the plaintiff is a citizen of a state other than Missouri; that it manufactures liquor in one of the states certified as 'discriminating'; that it holds a non-resident Missouri permit under which it imports and sells in Missouri a part of its products; and that it would be irreparably injured if the provision of the Missouri statutes were enforced. The fifth case differs only in that the bill alleges that the plaintiff is a citizen of Missouri engaged there in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Epstein v. Lordi
..."for delivery or use" within New Jersey, as that phrase is employed in the Twenty-first Amendment. Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395, 59 S.Ct. 256, 83 L.Ed. 246 (1939); State Board of Equalization of California v. Young's Market, supra. Where, however, the liquor is not brought into t......
-
Tiq Bacchus Imports, Ltd v. Dias, 82-1565
... ... liquor industry, okolehao, a brandy distilled from the root of an indigenous shrub of Hawaii, ... of discriminating in favor of local products. Pp. 268-273 ... (a) ... and the Commerce Clause are parts of the same Constitution [and] each must be considered in ... 132, 60 S.Ct. 163, 84 L.Ed. 128 (1939); Finch & Co. v ... Page 282 ... McKittrick, 305 .S. 395, 59 S.Ct. 256, 83 L.Ed. 246 (1939); Indianapolis Brewing Co. v ... 254, 83 L.Ed. 243 (1939); Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U.S. 401, 58 S.Ct. 952, 82 ... 390, 394-395, 34 L.Ed.2d 342 (1972); Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter, 384 U.S. 35, 42, 86 S.Ct ... Frankfort Distilleries, Inc., 324 U.S. 293, 299, 65 S.Ct. 661, 664, 89 ... ...
-
Carter v. Commonwealth of Virginia Dickerson v. Same
...Brewing Co. v. Liquor Comm'n, 305 U.S. 391, 394, 59 S.Ct. 254, 255, 83 L.Ed. 243; see, also Joseph S. Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395, 398, 59 S.Ct. 256, 257, 83 L.Ed. 246. 1 Michie's Virginia Code 1942, Sec. 4675(1) et seq. 2 Regulations of the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control B......
-
Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corporation
...liquor is not limited by the commerce clause * * *.' Id., 305 U.S. at 394, 59 S.Ct. at 255. See also Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395, 59 S.Ct. 256, 83 L.Ed. 246. This view of the scope of the Twenty-first Amendment with respect to a State's power to restrict, regulate, or prevent th......
-
Table of Cases
...459 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (en banc), 839 Fields v. Palmdale Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2005), 1261 Finch v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395, 59 S.Ct. 256, 83 L.Ed. 246 (1939), First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles County, Cal., 482 U.S. 304, 107 S.Ct. 2378......
-
Discarding the North Dakota dictum: an argument for strict scrutiny of the three-tier distribution system.
...commerce--the so-called 'dormant' commerce clause." (footnotes omitted)). (42.) See, e.g., Joseph S. Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395, 398 (1939) ("Since ]enactment of the Twenty-First] amendment, the right of a State to prohibit or regulate the importation of intoxicating liquor......
-
Missouri's Hangover: Wine-ing about Direct-to-Consumer Prohibition: Sarasota Wine Mkt., LLC v. Schmitt.
...states possessed full policing authority over the exportation of alcohol across state lines); Joseph S. Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395 (1939); State Bd. Of Equalization of Cal. v. Young's Mkt. Co., 299 U.S. 59 (79) See State Bd., 299 U.S. at 59. (80) Id. at 60-62. (81) See id. ......
-
FINE(ING) WINE: CHALLENGING DIRECT-SHIPMENT LICENSING FEES ON DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE GROUNDS.
...concerning intoxicating liquors brought from without, unfettered by the Commerce Clause."); Joseph S. Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395, 398 (1939) ("Since [the Twenty-First] amendment, the right of a State to prohibit or regulate the importation of intoxicating liquor is not limi......