RICE, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL OF CALIFORNIA

v.

NORMAN WILLIAMS CO. ET AL.; BOHEMIAN DISTRIBUTING CO. V. NORMAN WILLIAMS CO. ET AL.; AND WINE & SPIRITS WHOLESALERS OF CALIFORNIA V. NORMAN WILLIAMS CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• Rice v. Norman Williams Co., 458 U.S. 654 (U.S. 1982)
  …refuse to do business with them, but “the state provided authority of the distillers to prohibit them from trading with others.” 108 Cal. App. 3d, at 357, 166 Cal. Rptr., at 570. The Supreme Court of California denied review. We granted certiorari, 454 U. S. 1080 (1981), and now reverse. [*659] II A In determining whether the Sherman Act pre-empts a state statute, we apply principles similar to those which we employ in considering whether any state statute is preempted by a federal statute pursuant to the…
• Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Black, 717 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1983)
  …rked at other non-covered jobs. Such a result would be contrary to the express purposes of the Act. The Fifth Circuit’s affirmance of a BRB decision in Fulks v. Avondale Shipyards, 10 BRBS 340 (1979), aff’d, 637 F. 2d 1008 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1080, 102 S.Ct. 633, 70 L.Ed.2d 613 (1981), is illustrative. Although Fulks was employed by Avondale Shipyards for 16 years, he was employed over navigable waters (and thus covered by the LHWCA) for only two months. 637 F. 2d at 1010. During those two mo…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Ingalls Shipbuilding Division v. White, 681 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …we are not bound by an erroneous interpretation of a statute. Charter Limousine v. Dade County Board of County Commissioners, 678 F. 2d 586, 588 (5th Cir. 1982); Fulks v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 637 F. 2d 1008, 1011 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1080, 102 S.Ct. 633, 70 L.Ed.2d 613 (1982). We do not need precedent to recognize that § 908(i)(A) is plain on its face in stating that deputy commissioners may approve agreed settlements. Generally when there is no ambiguity in the words of a statute,…