27 U.S.C. § 121
State statutes as operative on termination of transportation; original packages
All fermented, distilled, or other intoxicating liquors or liquids transported into any State or Territory or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage therein, shall upon arrival in such State or Territory be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such State or Territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases, 1898–2019 · leading case: Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005).
Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005). “313 (codified at 27 U.S.C. § 121 ). By its own terms, the Wilson Act did not allow States to discriminate against out-of-state liquor; rather, it allowed States to regulate imported liquor only "to the same extent and in the same manner" as domestic liquor.”
Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas, 139 S. Ct. 2449 (2019). “313 , 27 U.S.C. § 121 . Named for Senator James F.”
Clayton Byrd v. Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n, 883 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2018). “See Wilson Act of 1890, 27 U.S.C. § 121 ; Webb-Kenyon Act of 1913, 27 U.”
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976). “" 27 U. S. C. § 121 . [19] The Webb-Kenyon Act of 1913 prohibits "[t]he shipment or transportation.”
Fam. Winemakers of California v. Jenkins, 592 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010). “1885 (quoting 27 U.S.C. § 121 ) (internal quotation marks omitted).”
Arnold's Wines, Inc. v. Boyle, 571 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2009). “" 27 U.S.C. § 121 . This act as described recently in Granholm allowed states "to regulate imported liquor on the same terms as domestic liquor" but "did not allow States to discriminate against out-of-state liquor.”
Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U.S. 324 (1964). “27 U. S. C. §§ 121 , 122. In United States v.”
Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 341 U.S. 329 (1951). “*340 313, 27 U. S. C. § 121 ; Act of July 24, 1935, 49 Stat.”
Dep't of Revenue v. James B. Beam Distilling Co., 377 U.S. 341 (1964). “27 U. S. C. §§ 121 , 122. In De Bary v. Louisiana, 227 U.”
Bittle v. Bahe, 2008 OK 10 (Okla. 2008). “The Wilson Act, 27 U.S.C. § 121 , a 1890 act of Congress, subjected intoxicating liquor transported into a state to the operation and effect of the laws of the state enacted in the exercise of its police powers to the same extent as if the intoxicating liquor was produced in the…”
Arnold's Wines, Inc. v. Boyle, 515 F. Supp. 2d 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). “313 (codified as amended at 27 U.S.C. § 121 )). Subsequently, however, the Supreme Court held that the Wilson Act did not authorize a State to prohibit importation of liquor for personal use.”
Bolick v. Roberts, 199 F. Supp. 2d 397 (E.D. Va. 2002). “27 U.S.C. § 121 . The statute permits the state, in an exercise of its police power, to regulate alco- *440 hoi traffic after the liquor is transported into the state in interstate commerce as if it were a product that had been produced within the state.”
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.