|
|
Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm’n, 305 U.S. 391 (1939)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm’n, 305 U.S. 391 (1939)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 305 U.S. 382, click here.
Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Commission No. 130 Argued December 7, 1938 Decided January 3, 1939 305 U.S. 391
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Syllabus
1. Since the Twenty-First Amendment, the right of a State to prohibit or regulate the importation of intoxicating liquor is not limited by the commerce clause. P. 394.
2. Regulation discriminatory between domestic and imported intoxicating liquors, or between imported intoxicating liquors, is not prohibited by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 394.
3. A statute of Michigan prohibits dealers in beer in that State from selling any beer manufactured in a State which, by its laws, discriminates in manner described against beer manufactured in Michigan. Pursuant to the statute, the state Liquor Control Commission designated specifically other States, ten in number, including Indiana, which discriminated against Michigan beer, whereupon Michigan licensees were prohibited from purchasing, receiving, possessing, or selling any beer manufactured in those States. Held, as applied to an Indiana manufacturer of beer who sought to restrain the enforcement of the Michigan statute, it was not void as violating the commerce, due process, or equal protection clauses of the Federal Constitution. Pp. 392, 394.
It is unnecessary to consider whether the statute is retaliatory or protective in character; it is valid in either aspect.
4. The power of the State to forbid the sale of intoxicating liquor is undoubted. P. 394.
21 F.Supp. 969 affirmed.
Appeal from a decree of a District Court of three judges denying a temporary injunction and dismissing the bill in a suit to enjoin the enforcement of a state liquor law alleged to be "retaliatory" and unconstitutional.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm’n, 305 U.S. 391 (1939) in 305 U.S. 391 305 U.S. 392. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ZGC94P1SRW5TQQK.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm’n, 305 U.S. 391 (1939), in 305 U.S. 391, page 305 U.S. 392. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ZGC94P1SRW5TQQK.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm’n, 305 U.S. 391 (1939). cited in 1939, 305 U.S. 391, pp.305 U.S. 392. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ZGC94P1SRW5TQQK.
|