Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court vacated its prior order granting leave to appeal and denied leave because it was no longer persuaded that the presented questions warranted review. Separate opinions disagreed, addressing the potential Commerce Clause implications of Michigan Compiled Laws § 436.1205(3) and urging reconsideration in light of Granholm v. Heald.
Holdings
- The Court vacated its January 20, 2006 order granting leave to appeal and denied leave because it was no longer persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by the Court.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Michigan Supreme Court should retain review of the appeal after granting leave, briefing the issues, and hearing oral argument.
- Whether MCL 436.1205(3), as applied, discriminates against or burdens out-of-state wine distributors in violation of the Commerce Clause, an issue the dissent would have remanded for reconsideration in light of Granholm v. Heald.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (11)
- Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005)(relied upon by dissent)
- Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 476 U.S. 573, 578-579 (1986)(cited by dissent)
- Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978)(cited by dissent)
- Shafer v. Farmers Grain Co., 268 U.S. 189 (1925)(cited by dissent)
- Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 640-643 (1982)(cited by dissent)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970)(cited by dissent)
- Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice, 434 U.S. 429, 440-441 (1978)(cited by dissent)
- Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon, 511 U.S. 93, 99 (1994)(cited by dissent)
- New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269, 274 (1988)(cited by dissent)
- H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525, 539 (1949)(cited by dissent)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…