Document: 370 U.S. 713 82 S.Ct. 1294 8 L.Ed.2d 794 IDLEWILD BON VOYAGE LIQUOR CORPORATION, Petitioner,v.Martin C. EPSTEIN et al. Petitioner, v. Honorable Alexander BICKS al., Judges of the United States District Courtfor Southern New York. Nos. 138, 180, Misc. Argued Feb. 28, 1962. Decided June 25, Charles H. Tuttle, York City, for petitioner. Julius L. Sackman, Albany, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 The petitioner is in business selling bottled wines and liquors export from delivery to international airline passengers at their overseas destinations. Upon advice Attorney General York, State Liquor Authority informed that its was illegal under provisions Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. then instituted an action Court against respondents, members Authority. complaint asked a judgment declaring state statutes, as applied, were repugnant Commerce Clause, Export-Import Supremacy Clause Constitution, injunction restraining interfering with petitioner's business. 2 A request three-judge court 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284, U.S.C.A. denied. Instead, district judge whom presented simply retained jurisdiction cause, order give courts opportunity pass upon constitutional issues presented, although there no relevant litigation pending courts. D.C., 188 F.Supp. 434. 3 appealed Appeals Second Circuit.1 That dismissed appeal, one dissenting. Cir., 289 F.2d 426. Unambiguously stating opinion had acted erroneously, 'a should have been convened,' nevertheless view it powerless take formal corrective light this Court's decision Stratton St. Louis S.W.R. Co., 282 10, 51 8, 75 L.Ed. 135.2 4 Thereafter once again filed motion requesting statutory be impaneled. refused ground previous ruling made by other judges established 'the law case,' Appeals' appointed merely 'dictum.' 194 3. We granted certiorari leave file petition writ mandamus. 368 812, 39, 7 21. 5 agree convened case. When application addressed court, court's inquiry appropriately limited determining whether question raised substantial, least formally alleges basis equitable relief, case otherwise comes within requirements statute. Those criteria assuredly met here, applicable jurisdictional statute therefore impermissible single decide merits case, either granting or withholding relief.3 6 In held appeals precluded reviewing on which originally determined three judges. does not stand broad proposition ever any guidance when has erroneously invaded province court. clearly stated ought consider litigation. correct followed renewed such deem unnecessary will remanded expeditious consistent views here expressed. Cf. Bailey Patterson, 369 31, 34, 549, 512. It so ordered. Case remanded. 9 Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER took part these cases. 10 HARLAN WHITE consideration During pendency appeal another issued temporary respondents harassing business, but, relying original judge's order, properly rejected argument 'was final hence unappealable 1291, 1292,' pointing out '(a)ppellant effectively court.' 428. This like Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co. Nims, 252 317, where requested only event first terms plaintiff's operations.

Category: 8