O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 3-6-22 (2019)

Requirement of license for shipment of wines into state; contents of application; accompanying documents and labels; approval of wholesalers and wholesalers’ territories by commissioner

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No shipper shall be permitted to ship wines into this state without first obtaining a proper license from the commissioner in the manner provided in this article.

(b) In addition to the bond required in Code Section 3-6-21 and such other documentation required by the commissioner pursuant to this title, each shipper shall:

(1) Submit with his application one label for each brand of wine to be shipped for the first time by the shipper into this state;

(2) Designate in the application for registration the sales territories for each of its brands sold in this state; and

(3) Name one licensed wholesaler in each territory who shall be the exclusive distributor of the brand within the territory.

(c) Designations of wholesalers and wholesalers’ territories as provided in this Code section shall be initially approved by the commissioner and shall not be changed or initially disapproved except for cause. The commissioner shall determine cause after a hearing under regulations promulgated by the commissioner for such purposes.

History

Code 1933, § 58-809, enacted by Ga. L. 1977, p. 1316, § 1; Code 1933, § 5A-5503, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 1573, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For note and com-

ment, ‘‘Dude, Where’s My Wine? The Potential Effect of Granholm v. Heald on Georgia Direct Wine Shipment Regulations,’’ see 23 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 631 (2007).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Effect of section on contractual rights between wholesaler and subjobber. - This section does not purport to regulate private contractual rights between wine wholesaler, designated by out-of-state wineries as exclusive distributor of certain brands, and wholesaler’s

subjobber or salesperson, also a wholesaler. Chilivis v. National Distrib. Co., 239 Ga. 651, 238 S.E.2d 431 (1977). Cited in Ga. Oilmen’s Ass’n v. Ga. Dep’t of Revenue, 261 Ga. App. 393, 582 S.E.2d 549 (2003).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 45 Am. Jur. 2d, Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 11, 30 et seq., 102, 186, 192 et seq., 201, 209.

C.J.S. - 48 C.J.S., Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 78, 160, 404, 425 et seq., 440, 441.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2003–2010 · leading case: Georgia Oilmen's Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 582 S.E.2d 549 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Georgia Oilmen's Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 582 S.E.2d 549 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “First, the DOR’s interpretation of the statute is consistent with traditional canons of statutory interpretation, with other statutes in the Code, and with our Supreme Court’s interpretation of the similarly worded OCGA § 3-6-22, involving distribution of wine.”
Tuck Beckstoffer Wines LLC v. Ultimate Distributors, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “In an Executive Order dated December 23, 2009, the Commissioner found that TB Wines had established sufficient cause to *1008 change its designated wholesaler under the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 3-6-22(c) and Revenue Regulation 560-2-5-.”
— 3-6-22(c) — 1 case
Tuck Beckstoffer Wines LLC v. Ultimate Distributors, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “In an Executive Order dated December 23, 2009, the Commissioner found that TB Wines had established sufficient cause to *1008 change its designated wholesaler under the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 3-6-22(c) and Revenue Regulation 560-2-5-.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.