294:. While the system satisfies the first requirement for such immunity that the challenged restraint be "one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy," it does not meet the other requirement that the policy be "actively supervised" by the State itself. Under the system the State simply authorizes price setting and enforces the prices established by private parties, and it does not establish prices, review the reasonableness of price schedules, regulate the terms of fair trade contracts, monitor market conditions, or engage in any "pointed reexamination" of the program. The national policy in favor of competition cannot be thwarted by casting such a gauzy cloak of state involvement over what is essentially a private price-fixing arrangement. Pp. 102–106.
42:
314:(b) There is no basis for disagreeing with the view of the California courts that the asserted state interests behind the resale price maintenance system of promoting temperance and protecting small retailers are less substantial than the national policy in favor of competition. Such view is reasonable and is supported by the evidence, there being nothing to indicate that the wine-pricing system helps sustain small retailers or inhibits the consumption of alcohol by Californians. Pp. 110-114.
309:(a) Although under that Amendment States retain substantial discretion to establish liquor regulations over and above those governing the importation or sale of liquor and the structure of the liquor distribution system, those controls may be subject to the federal commerce power in appropriate situations. Pp. 106-110.
270:
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
266:
A California statute required 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
287:
1. California's wine-pricing system constitutes resale price maintenance in violation of the
Sherman Act, since the wine producer holds the power to prevent price competition by dictating the prices charged by wholesalers. And the State's involvement in the system is insufficient to establish
271:
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
437:
432:
298:
276:
227:
422:
346:
324:
83:
267:
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.
392:
417:
279:, which prohibits the transportation or importation of intoxicating liquors into any State for delivery or use therein in violation of the State's laws.
412:
427:
357:
245:
46:
17:
249:
125:, since the wine producer holds the power to prevent price competition by dictating the prices charged by wholesalers.
384:
148:
350:
231:
75:
180:
192:
184:
168:
140:
366:
290:
254:
121:
California's wine pricing system constitutes resale price maintenance in violation of the
172:
156:
375:
406:
78:
302:
160:
122:
94:
90:
248:
case in which the Court created a two-part test for the application of the
398:
65:
California Retail Liquor
Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., et al.
343:
California Retail Liquor
Dealers Association v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.
217:
Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
241:
California Retail Liquor
Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.
41:
35:
California Retail Liquor
Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.
18:
California Retail Liquor
Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.
305:
438:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
325:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 445
275:, 317 U.S. 341, and was also protected by § 2 of the
221:
205:
200:
129:
115:
107:
102:
70:
60:
53:
34:
111:90 Cal. App. 3d 979, 153 Cal. Rptr. 757 (affirmed)
433:United States state sovereign immunity case law
423:United States Twenty-first Amendment case law
8:
397:Content adapted from the case syllabus at
31:
29:1980 United States Supreme Court case
7:
393:Connecticut Law Review, 1981 14: 135
252:that it had previously developed in
47:Supreme Court of the United States
25:
418:United States Supreme Court cases
413:United States antitrust case law
353:97 (1980) is available from:
301:does not bar application of the
40:
428:1980 in United States case law
250:state action immunity doctrine
1:
244:, 445 U.S. 97 (1980), was a
246:United States Supreme Court
454:
288:antitrust immunity under
226:
216:
134:
120:
39:
54:Argued January 16, 1980
299:Twenty-first Amendment
277:Twenty-first Amendment
228:U.S. Const. amend. XXI
149:William J. Brennan Jr.
232:Sherman Antitrust Act
56:Decided March 3, 1980
283:Opinion of the Court
385:Library of Congress
181:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
89:100 S. Ct. 937; 63
209:Powell, joined by
145:Associate Justices
237:
236:
185:William Rehnquist
169:Thurgood Marshall
16:(Redirected from
445:
389:
383:
380:
374:
371:
365:
362:
356:
141:Warren E. Burger
130:Court membership
44:
43:
32:
21:
453:
452:
448:
447:
446:
444:
443:
442:
403:
402:
387:
381:
378:
372:
369:
363:
360:
354:
338:
333:
321:
291:Parker v. Brown
285:
273:Parker v. Brown
264:
255:Parker v. Brown
193:John P. Stevens
183:
171:
159:
98:
55:
49:
30:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
451:
449:
441:
440:
435:
430:
425:
420:
415:
405:
404:
401:
400:
395:
390:
337:
336:External links
334:
332:
329:
328:
327:
320:
317:
316:
315:
311:
310:
284:
281:
263:
260:
235:
234:
224:
223:
219:
218:
214:
213:
207:
203:
202:
198:
197:
196:
195:
173:Harry Blackmun
157:Potter Stewart
146:
143:
138:
132:
131:
127:
126:
118:
117:
113:
112:
109:
105:
104:
100:
99:
88:
72:
68:
67:
62:
61:Full case name
58:
57:
51:
50:
45:
37:
36:
28:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
450:
439:
436:
434:
431:
429:
426:
424:
421:
419:
416:
414:
411:
410:
408:
399:
396:
394:
391:
386:
377:
368:
359:
358:CourtListener
352:
348:
344:
340:
339:
335:
330:
326:
323:
322:
318:
313:
312:
308:
307:
306:
304:
300:
295:
293:
292:
282:
280:
278:
274:
268:
261:
259:
257:
256:
251:
247:
243:
242:
233:
229:
225:
220:
215:
212:
208:
204:
199:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
147:
144:
142:
139:
137:Chief Justice
136:
135:
133:
128:
124:
119:
114:
110:
106:
101:
96:
92:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
69:
66:
63:
59:
52:
48:
38:
33:
27:
19:
342:
296:
289:
286:
272:
269:
265:
253:
240:
239:
238:
222:Laws applied
210:
201:Case opinion
188:
176:
164:
152:
103:Case history
82:
64:
26:
303:Sherman Act
161:Byron White
123:Sherman Act
407:Categories
331:References
262:Background
95:U.S. LEXIS
93:233; 1980
211:unanimous
91:L. Ed. 2d
71:Citations
341:Text of
319:See also
206:Majority
367:Findlaw
297:2. The
116:Holding
388:
382:
379:
376:Justia
373:
370:
364:
361:
355:
191:
189:·
187:
179:
177:·
175:
167:
165:·
163:
155:
153:·
151:
349:
108:Prior
351:U.S.
84:more
76:U.S.
74:445
347:445
409::
345:,
258:.
230:,
97:86
79:97
87:)
81:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.