In the recent federal court decision from the Western District of Michigan, Capitol Beverage Co. v. Hornell Brewing Co., distributors nationwide received an important lesson about how narrowly defined statutory terms can threaten their significant investments in developing brand
Ashley Brandt
Answering the need for more accessible libation legal information, Ashley Brandt started the Libation Law Blog with the hope to address real questions for real food and beverage clients. Located in Chicago, Ashley’s belief in readily available information drives the blog and his law practice out of Goldstein & McClintock.
Website:
https://libationlawblog.com/
Federal Court Allows Winery to Pursue Insurance Claim in Defective Wine Coverage Dispute
A May 19, 2025 opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle Division) offers a compelling lesson for wineries and wine producers on how disputes over defective wine intersect with commercial liability insurance. The decision…
Eighth Circuit Strengthens Franchise Rights for Distributors
Beverage distributors just gained major ground under the Missouri Franchise Act (MFA), thanks to a new opinion from the Eighth Circuit. In Pinnacle Imports, LLC v. Share A Splash Wine Co., LLC (link to opinion), the court reversed a district…
Standing Still: California Wine Law Challenge Falls on Procedural Grounds, Not the Dormant Commerce Clause
The federal court decision in Dwinell, LLC v. McCullough, No. 2:23-cv-10029-SB-KES (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2025), offers an instructive reminder that the biggest hurdles for those challenging alcohol laws under the Dormant Commerce Clause are often not constitutional—but procedural.…
Washington Court Tries to Sidestep Granholm in Out-of-State Distiller Fight
In an opinion that will likely not stand for long, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in Shady Knoll Orchards & Distillery v. Vollendroff handed down a ruling (link to opinion) denying dormant Commerce Clause claims…
The Echo of Brandeis in the Age of Tennessee Wine: Jean-Paul Wegg and the Limits of State Power under the 21st Amendment
Justice Brandeis, writing for the Supreme Court in State Board of Equalization v. Young’s Market Co. (1936), offered a (then) foundational interpretation of the Twenty-first Amendment, asserting a remarkably broad scope of state authority over alcohol. The case involved…
When Bottles Break and Contracts Bend: Lessons from the MacH Flynt v. Veritiv Warranty Dispute
When bottles break in transit or on the production line, the resulting cracks often run deeper than glass—they cut straight through commercial relationships, landing suppliers and buyers in federal court. That’s what happened in MacH Flynt, Inc. v. Veritiv Operating…
Ohio’s Wine Shipping Battle: Block v. Canepa – A Final Blow in the District Court
Another federal court has weighed in on the ongoing war over direct-to-consumer wine shipping, and Ohio has scored a victory in Block v. Canepa. After a Sixth Circuit remand and a refusal by the Ohio Attorney General to seek Supreme…
Keg Deposits, Legal Battles, and Distributor Protections: Lessons from Cavalier v. MicroStar
In a recent legal skirmish that should catch the attention of distributors nationwide, Cavalier Distributing Company secured a temporary restraining order (TRO) against MicroStar Logistics LLC in an Ohio federal court. This case underscores the critical importance for distributors to…
The 9th Circuit’s Decision in Day v. Henry: Another Step in the Developing Dormant Commerce Clause and 21st Amendment Jurisprudence
If you’ve been following along with dormant Commerce Clause litigation in the alcohol space, the 9th Circuit’s recent ruling in Day v. Henry should grab your attention. If you haven’t been tracking these cases, you’re missing a fascinating evolution of…