Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

324 Liquor Corp. Vs. Duffy

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 13, 1987

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

58 entries 3 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. Craig Vs. Boren US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1976
  2. WisconsIn Vs. Constantineau US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1971
  3. Capital Cities Cable, Inc. Vs. Crisp US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1984
  4. Liquor Corp. v. Duffy
    Search
  5. U.S. 335 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy
    Search
  6. U.S. 335 (1987) 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy
    Search
  7. bb was not immune under the state action exemption from the antitrust laws set forth in Parker v. Brown
    Search
  8. prevents wholesalers from allowing or requiring retail price competition. Cf. California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal
    Search
  9. laws. The State's system does meet the first requirement of the two-part test for determining immunity under Parker v. Brown
    Search
  10. liquor retailers without substituting an adequate system of regulation. Cf. California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal
    Search
  11. A New York Supreme Court denied the petition. 324 Liquor Corp. v. McLaughlin
    Search
  12. Misc.2d 746, 464 N.Y.S.2d 355 (1983). The Appellate Division reversed. 324 Liquor Corp. v. McLaughlin
    Search
  13. bb and reinstated the penalties. J.A.J. Liquor Store, Inc. v. New
    Search
  14. bb is not immune under the state action doctrine of Parker v. Brown
    Search
  15. J.A.J. Liquor Store, Inc. v. New
    Search
  16. jurisdiction, 475 U.S. 1080 (1986), and we now reverse. II In California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal
    Search
  17. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite
    Search
  18. Service Corp., 465 U. S. 752 , 465 U. S. 761 (1984). See Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John
    Search
  19. U. S. 342 may stimulate interbrand competition even as it reduces intrabrand competition. Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE
    Search
  20. manufacturer may announce resale prices in advance and refuse to deal with those who fail to comply. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite
    Search
  21. United States v. Colgate
    Search
  22. We have noted that industry-wide resale price maintenance also may facilitate cartelization. Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE
    Search
  23. Id. at 445 U. S. 103 . As we explained in Rice v. Norman
    Search
  24. B In Parker v. Brown
    Search
  25. Hallie v. Eau
    Search
  26. Claire, 471 U. S. 34 , 471 U. S. 38 (1985). Parker v. Brown
    Search
  27. Parker v. Brown
    Search
  28. Ibid. Our decisions have established a two-part test for determining immunity under Parker v. Brown
    Search
  29. California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal
    Search
  30. Aluminum, Inc., supra, at 479 U. S. 105 (quoting Lafayette v. Louisiana
    Search
  31. Id. at 445 U. S. 106 (quoting Bates v. State
    Search
  32. Twenty-first Amendment powers, though broad, are circumscribed by other provisions of the Constitution. See Larkin v. Grendel's
    Search
  33. Department of Revenue v. James
    Search
  34. Hostetter v. Idlewild
    Search
  35. United States v. Topco
    Search
  36. of the Moreland Commission that higher prices do not decrease consumption of liquor. J.A.J. Liquor Store, Inc. v. New
    Search
  37. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt
    Search
  38. on state law matters, Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand
    Search
  39. York State Liquor Authority, 64 N.Y.2d 504, 520, 479 N.E.2d 779, 788 (1985). In Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith
    Search
  40. requirement, and so be exempt from the antitrust laws under Parker v. Brown
    Search
  41. U. S. 341 (1943). See Morgan v. Division
    Search
  42. no occasion to consider whether a simple minimum markup statute would be entitled to antitrust immunity under Parker v. Brown
    Search
  43. Such comprehensive regulation is immune under Parker v. Brown
    Search
  44. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin
    Search
  45. Cf. California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal
    Search
  46. Liquor Corp. v. McLaughlin
    Search
  47. of Parker v. Brown
    Search
  48. II In California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal
    Search
  49. See Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John
    Search
  50. Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial