See
Reply to snipped-for-privacy@cwdjr.net .
Yes, we can. No problem.
in article qW3ie.5733$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net, dick neidich at snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote on 5/16/05 9:32 AM:
If you have the time, this is the actual ruling. Scroll down the page to the the case listing. It's called "Granholm v. Heald", and was the first case listed a few minutes ago.
I looked at the preliminary copy of the decision that was posted by Midlife. In it, I find: "Approximately 26 states allow some direct shipping of wine, with various restrictions". Thus these 26 states likely will have to apply the same rules for in and out of state shipping to individuals. However that leaves nearly 1/2 of the states, that do not allow any shipping of wine to individuals, exactly where they are now as if this court decision had never been made. Thus this decision is just a limited, but important, first step for the US as a whole. I am not a lawyer, but the language in the decision seems to be very clear on this point, unless the legal meaning is completely removed from standard English.
Reply to snipped-for-privacy@cwdjr.net .
What I read is that if a state allows in-state wineries to ship direct to the consumer, they must allow out of state wineries to do the same. There can be no preferential treatment. This means a state like Ohio--while I am from--will either have to stop all direct shipment or allow all.
If they stop shipments they will damage the local economy and lose even more tax revenue. The Supreme Court decision was not applicable to only
26 states. It will be applied across the board, meaning this decision applies to Ohio as well.snipped-for-privacy@webwinerack.com
Cwdjrx _ wrote:
The 26 you reference are either reciprocity or require permits ( which are still allowed after ruling). The ruling I think is a bigger blow against the 24 states that are not leveling the playing field between in-state and out-state wineries.
Luckily, I live in Oregon so we can have anything shipped here as long as out state is allowed to ship into theirs.
J~
Cwdjrx _ wrote:
If the TV news expert sources are correct, the new decision will change nothing in Oklahoma. Oklahoma does not allow delivery of wine from either in or out of state sources to individuals. The ruling would only become important if Oklahoma tried to pass a law to allow home delivery of wine from the very few small wineries that it has. It is doubtful that these few small wineries have much political power compared to that of the importers,wholesalers, and distributors.
Reply to snipped-for-privacy@cwdjr.net .
"RJG" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
Amen
direct
decision
Ohio already allows direct shipping of wine to consumers if the wine is not already being shipped into the State by a whosesale distributor. Go to
No, this case will not affect retailers' practices. However, you can expect another rounds of suits to follow on the heels of this one, using this case as precedent. I'd be surprised if a few Internet retailers don't sue states that permit in-state shipment by retailers.
I will also take this opportunity to say "told ya so" for once in this group, as I predicted this outcome back in December:
Of course, Dick also made the prescient call that this will just result in states banning intrastate wine shipment, too :(
Mark Lipton (posting from a Best Western en route back to my felony state home)
Mark, Supreme Court ruling did not say that they have to accept wine shipments.
As each state scurries around you will see that in the end most states will find a way to skirt the essence of the rule. The will not restrict intrastate but will make licensing so hard for out of state that it won't happen.
Its a small victory but not a real one.
Still NC does not permit out of state shipments freely. why not?
My previous posting on this subject as follows:
Richard Neidich Dec 8 2004, 10:18 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.food.wine From: "Richard Neidich" - Find messages by this author Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 03:18:09 GMT Local: Wed,Dec 8 2004 10:18 pm Subject: Re: SCOTUS and Wine Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Sorry, I had to much wine tonight...to clarify...
States have a choice of poison to take. Any laws to apply to intrastate must apply to interstate. They then have a choice.
I don't think that the Supreme Court will cross into any percieved areas of State Rights. In the end they will give states the choice of which poison they want to take.
DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.