Freeman v. Corzine

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a plaintiff first has the burden of proving that the statute is discriminatory
• holding in-state consumers’ inability to “drink [wines that] are not cattied by [in-state] resellers” constituted Article III injury (quoting Bridenbaugh v. Freeman- Wilson, 227 F.3d 848, 849 (7th Cir. 2000)); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278, 286 (1997
• finding standing satisfied in dormant Commerce Clause context because the regulation at issue directly affected the Plaintiffs’ ability to participate in commerce
• The dormant Commerce Clause “prohibits a state from impeding free market forces to shield in- state businesses from out-of-state competition.”
• “[T]he three-tier system itself is unquestionably legitimate, and . . . state policies are protected under the Twenty-first Amendment when they treat liquor produced out of state the same as its domestic equivalent.”
• Once the plaintiff shows that the state law is discriminatory, the state “must demonstrate[:] (1) that the statute serves a legitimate local interest, and (2) that this purpose could not be served as well by available nondiscriminatory means.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).