Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U.S. 401 (1938)
U.S. Supreme Court, (May 23, 1938)
Docket number: 761
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/20018944
Id. vLex: VLEX-20018944
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Search in this document
Document options
RSSSupreme Court of Georgia - HEUBLEIN, INC. v. STATE OF GEORGIA et al., 256 Ga. 578, 351 S.E.2.d 190
U.S. Supreme Court - Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)
U.S. Supreme Court - Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. ___ (2005)
U.S. Supreme Court - Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263 (1984)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Juanita Swedenburg, in Her Own Capacity, Juanita Swedenburg, as Proprietor of Swedenburg Winery, a Virginia Partnership, David Lucas, in His Own Capacity, David Lucas, as Proprietor of the Lucas Winery, a California Sole Proprietorship, Patrick G. Fitzgerald, Cortes Derussy, Robin Brooks, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Edward F. Kelly, Chairman of the State Liquor Authority, Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, State of New York, in His Official Capacities, Lawrence J. Gedda, Commissioner of the New York State Liquor Authority, Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, State of New York, in His Official Capacities, Joseph Zariello, Commissioner of the New York State Liquor Authority, Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, State of New York, in His Official Capacities, Defendants-Appellants, Charmer Industries, Inc., Premier Beverage Company Llc, Peerless Importers Inc, Local 2D of the Allied Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Eber Brothers Wine and Liquor Corp, Metropolitan Package Store ..., 358 F.3d 223 (2nd Cir. 2004) in Her Own Capacity, Juanita Swedenburg, as Proprietor of Swedenburg Winery, a Virginia Partnership, David Lucas, in His Own Capacity, David Lucas, as Proprietor of the Lucas Winery, a California Sole Proprietorship, Patrick G. Fitzgerald, Cortes Derussy, Robin Brooks, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Edward F. Kelly, Chairman of the State Liquor Authority, Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, State of New York, in His Official Capacities, Lawrence J. Gedda, Commissioner of the New York State Liquor Authority, Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, State of New York, in His Official Capacities, Joseph Zariello, Commissioner of the New York State Liquor Authority, Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, State of New York, in His Official Capacities, Defendants-Appellants, Charmer Industries, Inc., Premier Beverage Company Llc, Peerless Importers Inc, Local 2D of the Allied Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Eber Brothers Wine and Liquor Corp, Metropolitan Package Store ...
U.S. Supreme Court MAHONEY v. JOSEPH TRINER CORP., 304 U.S. 401 (1938)
[Page 304 U.S. 401, 404] 'The plaintiffs argue the limitation of the broad language of the Twenty-First Amendment is sanctioned by its history; and by the decisions of this Court on the Wilson Act (27 U.S.C.A. 121) the Webb-Kenyon Act ( 27 U.S.C.A. 122) and the Reed Amendment (27 U.S.C.A. 1 note). As we think the language of the amendment is clear, we do not discuss these matters. ... 'The claim that the statutory provisions and the regulations are void under the equal protection clause may be briefly disposed of. A classification recognized by the Twenty-First Amendment cannot be deemed forbidden by the Fourteenth.' Second. Joseph Triner Corporation insists that the statute is unconstitutional because it permits unreasonable discrimination between imported brands. That is, the registered brands of other foreign manufacturers may be imported while its unregistered brands may not be, although 'identical in kind, ingredient and quality.' We are asked to limit the power conferred by the amendment so that only those importations may be forbidden which, in the opinion of the Court, violate a reasonable regulation of the liquor traffic. To do so would, as stated in the Young's Market Case, page 6i, 57 S.Ct. page 78, 'involve not a construction of the amendment, but a rewriting of it.' Third. The fact that Joseph Triner Corporation had, when the statute was passed, a valid license and a stock of liquors in Minnesota imported under it, is immaterial. Independently of the Twenty-First Amendment, the State had power to terminate the license. Mugler v. Kansas, , 8 S.Ct. 273; Premier-Pabst Sales Co. v. Grosscup, 298 U.S. 226, 228, 56 S.Ct. 754, 755 REVERSED. Mr. Justice REED concurs in the result. Mr. Justice CARDOZO took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.