Rice

Norman Williams Co. v. Rice

Bad Law
108 Cal. App. 3d 348·166 Cal. Rptr. 563·1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2059
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 17, 1980Civ. 19089California4,818 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reynoso, J.

In this proceeding in writ of mandate we are called upon to determine the validity of that portion of Business and Professions Code section 23672 (as amended by Assem. Bill No. 499, Stats. 1979, ch. 280, § 1; hereinafter designation statute), which provides that a licensed importer shall not purchase or accept delivery of any brand of distilled spirits unless designated as an authorized importer of such brand by the brand owner or its authorized representative. We conclude for reasons which we explain, that the designation statute is invalid. Accordingly, we issue the writ.

This dispute arises out of the determination by the appellate courts of this state that California’s alcoholic beverage price maintenance laws are invalid. Prior to 1978 the Business and Professions Code contained price maintenance provisions concerning all aspects of the alcoholic beverage industry. In Rice v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeals Bd. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 431 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 579 P.2d 476 , 96 A.L.R.3d 613 ], the California Supreme Court unanimously determined that the price maintenance provisions relating to the retail sale of distilled spirits were in violation of the Sherman Act ( 15…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.