Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25307081/5/regulate-Commerce-among-the-several-States-U-S-Const
Timestamp: 2015-01-30 23:48:50
Document Index: 407678635

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 5041', '§ 24', '§ 4303', '§ 599', '§ 241', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 564', '§ 241', '§ 4301', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19']

"regulate Commerce . . . among the several States." U.S. Const for Family Winemakers v. Jenkins
Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See moreDownloadStandard viewFull view of .Add to collectionMark as finishedMarked as finished. UndoRemove from libraryLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks5Activity×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of ContentsMassachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission; ROBERT HON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSCommerce Clause of the United States Constitution. See Family"regulate Commerce . . . among the several States." U.S. ConstSection 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment states thatI. FactsCourt has looked to in previous Commerce Clause cases challengingII. Whether § 19F Discriminates against Interstate CommerceCommerce Clause if "the burden imposed on [interstate] commerce isIt says this proves that § 19F disproportionately benefits out-of-"small" § 19F(b) wineries in the country than "large" § 19F(a)Massachusetts says that § 19F poses no undue burden on interstateMassachusetts's arguments. Because we hold that § 19FA. Section 19F is Discriminatory in EffectU.S. at 99 (defining discrimination); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v505 F.3d at 36 (explaining the doctrine); Houlton Citizens'Section 19F confers a clear competitive advantage toSection 19F's demarcation line between "small" and "large" wineriesClause context. Even under our narrower methodology in Alliance ofB. Section 19F is Discriminatory in PurposeSection 19F is unlike the law at issue in Alliance ofU.S.C. § 5041(c)(1)-(2); 27 C.F.R. § 24.278(a) (2008); TTBCompliance Seminar at 70-71. The federal tax code also measuresF.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2008); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4303.232(A)(1);Stat. § 599.004; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 241.010(46); Ohio Rev. CodeAriz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 4-101(36); Ark. Code Ann. § 3-5-202(4);Fla. Stat. § 564.01; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 241.010(55); Ind. Code7.1-1-3-49; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4301.01(3). Section 19F'sSection 19F's unusual regulatory features do track oneC. Lack of Legitimate Local Purpose and AvailabilityConference of State Legislatures adopted in 1997. The Model BillIII. Whether the Twenty-first Amendment Immunizes FaciallyTwenty-first Amendment protects facially neutral laws like § 19FThey do support the contention that § 19F is not discriminatory inWilson and Webb-Kenyon Acts would permit states to enact liquorMassachusetts identifies two interests § 19F serves: "the promotion"prevent[s] a deluge of alcoholic beverages [from] descending275. Those purposes include "promoting temperance, ensuringU.S. at 432. Massachusetts does not present any argument as to whyMoving Sideways: Post-Granholm Developments in Wine Direct ShippingIV0 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}
P. 1Family Winemakers v. JenkinsFamily Winemakers v. JenkinsRatings: (0)|Views: 4,538|Likes: 1Published by scribd7036More info:Published by: scribd7036 on Jan 16, 2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/25307081/Family-Winemakers-v-Jenkins11/29/2012pdftextoriginal Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.