Case 5.1: Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins, 592 F.3d 1 (2010)

1. Application

1.1. In this case, out od state wineries can prove that the state of Massachusetts is discriminationg against out of state business. This would open the door for them to take advantage of multiple distribution methods.

2. Conclusion

2.1. The rule would certainly apply in this situation because of the fact that the number (30,000 gallons) was so deliberate. This allowed the majority of in- state wineries to take advantage while out of state wineries were bloacked.

3. Impact

4. Importance

4.1. This ruling is certainly important in that it stresses the importance in looking for deliberate discrimiantory acts in state and business. In this case it was almost obvious that the state was being discriminatory and it is important to search for patterns like this.

5. Influence

6. Facts

6.1. Parties Involved

6.1.1. Massachusetts State, Wineries (large and small) both in and out of state. Specifically California Wineries.

6.2. What Happened?

6.2.1. The state of Massachusetts enacted a law that altered the flow of alcohol sales. Wineries producing over 30,000 gallons or above were forced to choose between online or merchant distribution.

6.3. Procedural History

6.3.1. Previously only in state winepmakers were allowed to obtain both types of distribution liscences.

7. Issue

7.1. The law favored in state wineries in that 98% of wine made in the U.S. is produced by winemakers that exceed the 30,000 gallon limit. Whereas the in state winereries were predominantly under this threshold.

8. Rule of Law

8.1. The 2006 law altered the sompetitive balance to favor in state wineries and businesses. It is unlawful to decriminate wineries in this manner.