Rice

Enrico's Inc. v. Rice

Good Law
551 F. Supp. 511·1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16840
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 24, 1982C-81-0068 EFLCalifornia2,158 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lynch, J.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, this Court confronts the issue of whether the price-posting procedure required by California Business and Professions Code section 24756 and 4 Cal.Admin. Code section 100 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Rule 100”) constitutes a per se violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. Business and Professions Code section 24756 provides, in relevant part:

Rule 100 provides that each wholesaler who sells or distributes distilled spirits in California must file with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control a “written price schedule showing the price per case at which distilled spirits will be sold or distributed, and the discounts offered” by the wholesaler to retailers. 4 Cal.Admin.Code § 100(a). Discounts must be based on quantity and must conform to the formulae set forth in the Rule. 4 Cal.Admin.Code § 100(g). All prices and discounts must be filed at the Sacramento office of the Department by the 15th of the month. On the following day, the filings become publicly available. 4 Cal.Admin.Code § 100(c). It is required that the posted wholesale prices remain in effect for at least a month (4 Cal.Admin.Code § 100(b)), except…

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.