Quality Brands, Inc. v. Barry

• Decision Date: 24 April 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-7177,89-7177
• Citation: 1990 WL 51795,901 F.2d 1130
• Parties: Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant. QUALITY BRANDS, INC., v. Marion S. BARRY, Jr., Mayor, et al., Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Page 1130

901 F.2d 1130

284 U.S.App.D.C. 78

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.

QUALITY BRANDS, INC., v. Marion S. BARRY, Jr., Mayor, et al., Appellants.

No. 89-7177.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

April 24, 1990.

Before SILBERMAN, STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was briefed and argued by counsel. While the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion, they have been accorded full consideration by the Court. See D.C.Cir.R. 14(c) (August 1, 1987). On consideration thereof, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, by this Court, that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in this cause is hereby affirmed for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, by this Court, sua sponte, that the Clerk shall withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.R. 15(b)(2) (August 1, 1987). This instruction to the Clerk is without prejudice to the right of any party at any time to move for expedited issuance of the mandate for good cause shown.

MEMORANDUM

We have elected to dispose of this appeal by unpublished order primarily because the most substantial argument put forward by the appellants--an argument which, if we accepted it, would allow us to avoid reaching any constitutional issues--was not properly raised before the district court. Under those circumstances, we think it unnecessary to discuss the several rather important and difficult questions of constitutional law involved. Instead, we affirm substantially for the reasons articulated in the opinion of the district court. See Quality Brands, Inc. v. Barry, 715 F.Supp. 1138 (D.D.C.1989).

Before this court, the appellants urge that the District of Columbia's Wholesale Liquor Industry Storage Act of 1986 was really only an enforcement of the congressionally enacted District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of 1934. That is, within-the-District storage for all District licensed wholesalers was mandated by Congress' 1934 Act (and the 1935 amendments thereto) which is, of course, not subject to scrutiny under the Commerce Clause. Under that view, the exemption granted to the appellee by the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (the "Board"), allowing appellee to store alcoholic beverages in Maryland, was ultra vires of the Board's authority.

This is a substantial argument, but it was not properly raised in the district court. Contending that they did raise the argument below, appellants point us to a rather ambivalent statement from the District's answers to interrogatories to...