Twenty-First Amendment

113 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Paladino v. City OF Omaha
  471 F.2d 812· 8th Cir.· 1972-12-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that under the Twenty-first Amendment, a city may prohibit sexually oriented performances in establishments licensed to sell liquor by the drink, unless the prohibition is irrational.
• Parks v. Allen
  409 F.2d 210· 5th Cir.· 1969-03-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the record was insufficiently developed to determine the reasonableness of the city ordinance limiting liquor licenses based on family ownership.
• Barnett v. Bowles
  151 F.2d 77· Emer. Ct. App.· 1945-08-29 ·cited 7×
  The dissenting judge holds that the Emergency Price Control Act does not authorize the Price Administrator to regulate prices of commodities whose sale is unlawful under state law. The Administrator exceeded his statutory mandate by applying regulations to the sale of intoxicatin
• State v. Powell
  118 Fla. 296· Fla.· 1935-01-26 ·cited 7×
  This case concerns whether Chapter 7733 of the Acts of Extra Session of 1918, which regulated intoxicating liquors, was in effect on December 31, 1918, under Florida's constitutional amendments. The court determined that the statute remained effective and was revived by a later c
• Wine Indus. OF Fla., Inc. v. Miller
  609 F.2d 1167· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-15 ·cited 6×
  ATF Rule 77-4 is unconstitutional because it conflicts with Florida law, and the federal interest is insufficient to override state regulation under the Twenty-first Amendment.
• Paul A. Richter dba the Body Shop v. Dep't OF Alcoholic Bev. Control OF the State OF Cal.
  559 F.2d 1168· 9th Cir.· 1977-08-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state's regulation prohibiting nude dancing in establishments licensed to sell liquor is facially constitutional, and its application to the appellant's establishment was permissible under the Twenty-first Amendment, even if the dancing had some expressive
• Magnolia Liquor Co., Inc. v. Claud B. Cooper
  231 F.2d 941· 5th Cir.· 1956-04-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Federal Alcohol Administration Act does not prohibit tie-in sales, resolving ambiguity in favor of the appellant.
• United States ex rel. Randall v. United States Marshal for E. Dist. of N.Y.
  143 F.2d 830· 2d Cir.· 1944-07-06 ·cited 6×
  A final judgment and sentence for violating the National Prohibition Act are unaffected by the subsequent repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment and remain enforceable.
• Walker v. City OF Kan. City
  911 F.2d 80· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-07 ·cited 4×
  The Twenty-first Amendment confers broad regulatory authority on cities to control liquor sales, including the circumstances and environment, such as go-go dancing in a barroom setting.
• United States v. State OF N.D.
  856 F.2d 1107· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state regulation requiring labels on liquor sold to federal enclaves was permissible under the Twenty-first Amendment and not preempted by federal law.
• In re The Beer Inst. (formerly named United States Brewers Ass'n v. Healy
  849 F.2d 753· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 4×
  The amended Connecticut beer price affirmation provisions unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce by directly regulating prices in bordering states.
• Grendel's DEN, Inc. v. Goodwin
  662 F.2d 102· 1st Cir.· 1981-07-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a law protecting churches and schools from liquor-serving establishments does not violate the Establishment Clause. The dissent argues the law is a permissible land-use regulation, not an establishment of religion.
• Lamp Liquors, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co.
  563 F.2d 425· 10th Cir.· 1977-09-20 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's decision, believing the majority's interpretation incorrectly nullifies a constitutional provision.
• The Trs. OF Mortg. Tr. OF Am. v. Holland
  554 F.2d 237· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a local ordinance limiting liquor sales to specific business zones, based on the presence of residences, is not arbitrary or irrational and does not violate due process or equal protection.
• Strauss v. Berkshire
  132 F.2d 530· 8th Cir.· 1942-12-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Deputy Commissioner lacked authority to prohibit intrastate sales during a suspension period and that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient grounds for admitting additional evidence on appeal.
• Miller v. State
  411 So. 2d 299· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-03-23 ·cited 3×
  Miami Ordinance 3-12 prohibiting employees and entertainers in alcohol-dispensing establishments from mingling or fraternizing with customers is constitutional on its face because it adequately apprises employees of proscribed conduct—prohibiting social conduct while permitting o
• Lanier v. City OF Newton
  842 F.2d 253· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-11 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that while a city's ordinance banning topless dancing in establishments selling alcohol was a valid exercise of twenty-first amendment authority, a provision banning 'cleavage' was unconstitutionally vague and unreasonable under state law.
• Miller v. Hedlund
  813 F.2d 1344· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Oregon's beer and wine price posting regulations constitute a "hybrid" restraint that violates the Sherman Act, and that the state's involvement does not provide immunity under Parker v. Brown due to lack of active supervision.
• Jorgenson v. Cnty. of Volusia
  625 F. Supp. 1543· M.D. Fla.· 1986-01-17 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order, finding the Volusia County ordinance prohibiting topless dancing in establishments serving alcohol to be constitutional under the Twenty-first Amendment.
• The Blatnik Co. v. Ketola
  587 F.2d 379· 8th Cir.· 1978-11-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a city ordinance prohibiting sexually explicit entertainment in liquor establishments does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments, as it is a rational exercise of the state's Twenty-first Amendment powers.
• United States v. Erie Cnty. Malt Bev. Distribs. Ass'n
  264 F.2d 731· 3d Cir.· 1959-03-18 ·cited 2×
  The Twenty-first Amendment does not prevent federal prosecution under the Sherman Act for restraints of trade in malt beverages, as Pennsylvania law permits private sales but does not authorize price fixing or boycotts.
• Murphy v. Love
  249 F.2d 783· 10th Cir.· 1957-10-29 ·cited 2×
  Kansas cannot seize liquor shipments to a military reservation for non-compliance with state tax stamp requirements when the state lacks statutory authority to collect such taxes on the reservation and the seizure unduly burdens interstate commerce.
• Cartlidge v. Rainey
  168 F.2d 841· 5th Cir.· 1948-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because it lacked jurisdiction in rem over the seized property, which was in the custody of a state court, and because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which equitable relief could
• VFW John O'Connor Post 4833 v. Santa Rosa Cnty.
  506 F. Supp. 2d 1079· N.D. Fla.· 2007-03-12 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Santa Rosa County Land Development Code § 7.01.13(E)'s waiver provision is facially unconstitutional for vagueness but is severable from the rest of the ordinance, which remains valid.
• Inmuno Vital, Inc. v. Telemundo Grp., Inc.
  102 F. Supp. 376· S.D. Fla.· 2001-10-01 ·cited 1×
  The court held that defendants' pattern of discovery abuses and violations of court orders warranted striking their pleadings and entering a default as to liability.
• Bainbridge v. Bush
  148 F. Supp. 2d 1306· M.D. Fla.· 2001-07-17 ·cited 1×
  Florida's direct shipment law, while discriminatory under the dormant Commerce Clause, is a constitutional exercise of state power under the Twenty-First Amendment because it serves core state interests like revenue collection and orderly market conditions.
• Geaneas v. Willets
  715 F. Supp. 334· M.D. Fla.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the ordinance prohibiting buttocks exposure is not unconstitutionally vague and has not been selectively enforced against the plaintiffs. Therefore, the case is dismissed.
• Bainbridge v. Director of the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco
  11th Cir.· 2023-08-04
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the Division's motion to modify the injunction, holding that the motion was not a clerical correction under Rule 60(a) and was untimely under Rule 60(b)(1), and the injunction was not void under Rule 60(b)(4).
• Marrache v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-01-28
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were preempted by federal law and that he failed to state a claim for damages under FDUTPA and unjust enrichment.
• Toy Box, Inc. v. Bay Cnty.
  989 F. Supp. 1183· N.D. Fla.· 1997-12-31
  The court held that Bay County ordinances prohibiting nudity in establishments selling alcohol do not violate the First Amendment and are not unconstitutionally overbroad.
• Walker v. City OF Kan. City
  919 F.2d 1339· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-30
  The court is dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, arguing the panel opinion decided a case not presented by the parties or considered by lower courts.
• The Okla. Educ. Ass'n v. The Alcoholic Bev. Laws Enf't Comm'n
  889 F.2d 929· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-07
  Oklahoma's constitutional and statutory provisions prohibiting state employees from working in the alcoholic beverage business do not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments, as they are rationally related to legitimate state interests and do not infringe upon fundamental righ
• Brown-Forman Corp. v. Tenn. Alcoholic Bev. Comm'n
  860 F.2d 1354· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-04
  The court held that Tennessee's statute requiring distillers to sell alcoholic beverages in-state at a price no higher than the lowest price charged out-of-state does not violate the Commerce Clause.
• Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Gazzara
  800 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-02
  The New York price affirmation statute facially violates the Commerce Clause and is an invalid exercise of state power under the Twenty-First Amendment.
• S.A. Disc. Liquor, Inc. v. Tex. Alcoholic Bev. Comm'n
  709 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-27
  The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code provisions prohibiting retail sellers of alcohol from also being wholesale sellers, even for out-of-state sales, do not violate the Commerce Clause due to the Twenty-First Amendment's grant of authority to states regarding alcohol regulation.