Case Citator › Henry G. Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., Dba Bay Beer Distributors, a California Corporation

Henry G. Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., Dba Bay Beer Distributors, a California Corporation

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
798 F.2d 1279
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
210 of 210
Citing cases (total)
693
Treatment dates
1991
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Henry G. Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc. has one confirmed abrogation, listed below. All 210 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court rejected Mack's rule that unreviewed state administrative findings preclude later federal litigation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The other opinions generally repeated that history while continuing to rely on Mack's distinct rule allowing judicial notice of administrative records and other public materials.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

693 later cases cite Henry G. Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., Dba Bay Beer Distributors, a California Corporation; 210 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Henry G. Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., Dba Bay Beer Distributors, a California Corporation?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court abrogated Mack's rule that unreviewed state administrative findings preclude later federal ADEA litigation, holding that those findings have no preclusive effect.

    Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The question presented is whether claimants under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (Age Act or Act), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq., are collaterally estopped to relitigate in federal court the judicially unreviewed findings of a state administrative agency made with respect to an age-discrimination claim. We hold that such findings have no preclusive effect on federal proceedings. … We granted certiorari, 498 U. S. 1023 (1991), to resolve the conflict between the ruling here under review, see also Duggan v. Board of Education of East Chicago Heights, Dist. No. 169, Cook County, Ill., 818 F. 2d 1291 (CA7 1987), and those of the Eighth Circuit in Stillians, supra, and of the Ninth Circuit in Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., 798 F. 2d 1279 (1986).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Henry G. Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., Dba Bay Beer Distributors, a California Corporation and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace