Leisy v. Hardin
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
It later confined the original-package doctrine where packaging was devised to evade state law, and a district court expressly declined to follow the doctrine after the Supreme Court described it as rejected.
37 later cases cite Leisy v. Hardin; 37 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 Leisy v. Hardin?
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
Superseded by statute
-
The Supreme Court held that the Wilson Act removed Leisy's barrier to applying a state liquor law to an importer's sale after the Act took effect.
In re Rahrer · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
It is said that this cannot be so, because, by the decision in Leisy v. *563 Hardin, similar state laws were held unconstitutional, in so far as they prohibited the sale of liquors by the importer in the condition in which they had been imported. ... Congress did not use terms of permission to the State to act, , but simply removed an impediment to the enforcement of the state, lass in respect to imported packages in their original condition, created', by the absénce of a specific utterance on its parti, ft' imparted no power, to the State not then possessed, .but allowed imported property to fall at once upon arrival within the local jurisdiction.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the Wilson Act restored its power to prohibit sales of imported liquor in original packages despite Leisy's earlier result.
State v. Lord · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · filed
Leisy v. Hardin, supra. So far as the result in the last named case was to render ineffectual our statute prohibiting the sale of spirituous liquor in the original packages in which it is brought into the state (G. L., c. 109, s. 13), that result has been obviated by the statute known as the “ Wilson bill,” enacted by congress August *480 8, 1890, giving authority to the several states to regulate and prohibit the sale of spirituous liquors within their respective limits.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The Supreme Court refused to extend Leisy's original-package protection to small cigarette packages prepared to evade state sales restrictions.
Austin v. Tennessee · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
In Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 122 quarter barrels of beer, 171 one eighth barrels of beer and eleven cases of beer were seized by the city marshal of Keokuk under a state statute prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors. ... No question was made with regard to the casks being original packages, or as to the fact that, according to the custom of brewers, beer was usually and ordinarily imported from one State to another in casks of this size. ... Without undertaking to determine what is the proper size of an original package in each case, evidently the doctrine has no application where the manufacturer puts up the package with the express intent of evading thq laws of another State, and is enabled to carry out his purpose by the facile agency of an express company and the connivance of his consignee.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to follow
-
An Indiana district court expressly declined to apply the original-package doctrine cited in Leisy after the Supreme Court described that doctrine as rejected.
Lebamoff Enterprises, Inc. v. Snow · S.D. Indiana · filed
Cap N' Cork relies heavily on the "original package” doctrine, which was established in the late 19th Century to protect alcohol moving through interstate commerce from state regulation when it remained in its original package. Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100, 119, 10 S.Ct. 681, 34 L.Ed. 128 (1890). ... However, the original package doctrine pre-dated the Twenty-First Amendment and has been described by the Supreme Court in Granholm as "since-rejected.” 544 U.S. at 477, 125 S.Ct. 1885. The Court takes heed of the Supreme Court's characterization and declines to follow this "rejected” doctrine.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Leisy v. Hardin 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