| 翻訳と辞書 |
| California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.
''California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.'', , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court created a two-part test for the application of the state action immunity doctrine that it had previously developed in ''Parker v. Brown''.
Content adapted from the case syllabus at (), which is in the public domain.
==Background==
A California statute requires all wine producers and wholesalers to file fair trade contracts or price schedules with the State. If a producer has not set prices through a fair trade contract, wholesalers must post a resale price schedule and are prohibited from selling wine to a retailer at other than the price set in a price schedule or fair trade contract. A wholesaler selling below the established prices faces fines or license suspension or revocation.
After being charged with selling wine for less than the prices set by price schedules and also for selling wines for which no fair trade contract or schedule had been filed, respondent wholesaler filed suit in the California Court of Appeal asking for an injunction against the State's wine-pricing scheme. The Court of Appeal ruled that the scheme restrains trade in violation of the Sherman Act, and granted injunctive relief, rejecting claims that the scheme was immune from liability under that Act under the "state action" doctrine of ''Parker v. Brown'', 317 U.S. 341, 63 S.Ct. 307, 87 L.Ed. 315, and was also protected by § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment, which prohibits the transportation or importation of intoxicating liquors into any State for delivery or use therein in violation of the State's laws.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|