CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


INDIANAPOLIS BREWING CO. V. LIQUOR CONTROL COMM'N, 305 U. S. 391 (1939)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 305 U. S. 391 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 305 U.S. 391 (1939)

Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Commission

No. 130

Argued December 7, 1938

Decided January 3, 1939

305 U.S. 391

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. 305 U. S. 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. 305 U. S. 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. 305 U. S. 392, 305 U. S. 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. 305 U. S. 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. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 305 U. S. 392





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED