A constitutional theory still needs evidence of injury. The Dwinell litigation offers lessons about retailer contacts, business plans, and the factual record needed to challenge wine-distribution restrictions.
Washington’s distillery shipping restrictions raised a familiar question about unequal access for out-of-state producers. This April 2025 article critiques the district court’s reliance on retailer-shipping precedent.
New Jersey’s retailer shipping rules supplied another test of the relationship between the Commerce Clause and the Twenty-first Amendment. This article traces the constitutional debate from Brandeis to Tennessee Wine.
Keg deposits can become a dispute about contracts, reputation, and supplier relationships. The Cavalier–MicroStar litigation offers practical reasons to document deposit obligations, returns, and storage responsibilities.
Supplier oversight can reach management, marketing budgets, and day-to-day operations. The Dichello–Anheuser-Busch dispute offers a starting point for reviewing those provisions and documenting compliance.
Iowa’s winery licensing rules raised questions about equal access to direct retail sales. This article examines Buckel’s challenge and the distinction between the three-tier system and exceptions to it.
Losing a major brand can affect sales elsewhere in a distributor’s portfolio. The Four Roses dispute shows why a claim for those losses needs concrete evidence of causation and a defensible damages analysis.
Shady Knoll challenged Washington’s different treatment of in-state and out-of-state distilleries. The 2023 order considers Granholm at the motion to dismiss stage.
District Winery wanted to store alcohol outside the District. Its appeal put a warehouse rule, inspections, and Tennessee Wine’s treatment of state alcohol regulation in play.
The 2023 Block v. Canepa opinion revisits the Sixth Circuit’s earlier Michigan shipping case and asks what evidence Ohio’s restrictions require under Tennessee Wine.
Anvar v. Dwyer brings the role of evidence into focus in a Commerce Clause challenge to Rhode Island’s rules for out-of-state wine retailers.
The Sixth Circuit’s questions ranged from what an out-of-state retailer license could look like to the evidence Ohio offered for its wine shipping restrictions.
