Court Opinion

ID: 9464191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:27:10.053719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:30.287309
License: Public Domain

MARKEY, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
With all due deference, I cannot join the majority. Simply stated, my concern rests with the dismissal of the effect of the 21st Amendment on the basis of a distinction between importation and exportation in this particular case. Here, appellant is not exporting. Its sales are made within Wyoming. As the complaint states on its face, it is appellant’s customers who are exporting. Whether or not appellant’s customers might escape the impact of the 21st Amendment is, of course, not before us.
The effect of the majority opinion is to require the Colorado brewer, if it would avoid an antitrust suit, to engage in the “transportation or importation into” Wyoming of malt liquor for “use therein . in violation of the laws” of Wyoming.* I *433can find nothing in the authorities cited by the majority, or elsewhere, that would so exalt important public policy underlying our antitrust laws as to require what I believe to be the effective nullification of a constitutional provision.
For the same reasons, taking the allegations of the complaint as true, appellant was not entitled to a trial on the merits. I would affirm.

 Wyoming Statute, Section 12-2(d), defines a retail liquor license:
(d) Retail liquor license. — The words “retail liquor license” shall mean the authority under which a retailer shall be permitted to sell alcoholic and/or malt beverages for use or consumption but not for resale. (Emphasis supplied.)
*433and Section 12-2(n) defines retailer:
(n) Retailer. — The word “retailer” means a person who sells or offers for sale any alcoholic or malt beverage for use or consumption and not for resale. (Emphasis supplied.)