Evidence of A Theme Developing
Posted by Matthew Mann on November 24th, 2008A consistent is developing in the wine shipping court decision’s handed down this year in Texas, Indiana, Michigan and now Massachusetts. The losing parties invariably are failing because they are unable to generate the evidence necessary to support their claims. One can argue that the legal claims presented are the reason these cases failed. The recent Michigan case is an example. The wholesaler’s claims that strict adherence to the 3-tier system is necessary to maintain an orderly market, ensure the collection of tax revenue and prevent alcohol from falling into the hands of minors seem particularly dubious. When stated alone these are admirable goals.Â
Mere Platitudes
The problem is they become mere platitudes when not supported by evidence. The courts have consistently ruled that when the discriminatory nature of a law is determined, simply stating claims is not sufficient to support the dormant commerce clause doctrine that an important public purpose must be served by the challenged law and that no alternate solution other than the discriminatory behavior is available.
Why is this important, you may ask?Â
For one, it could indicate that the claims are in fact merely platitudes and that no real evidence to support them exists. More importantly from a legal standpoint is that each of these cases establish a precedent. Courts, particularly at the trial court level, rely heavily upon precedent. Once set, precedents become hard to overturn, usually requiring clear cut distinctions in order to deviate to a new rule of law. Well-thoughtout litigation plans involve pursuing cases that are ripe for litigation but also marshaling sufficient evidence to make your case. Taking a case to court with insufficient evidence will usually lead to bad results for the claimant. This is the case in the wine shipping cases here. Precedents predominantly favorable to wineries have been set, in part due to weak legal arguments but also to the losing parties’ inability to present evidence necessary to their claims. As we continue down this path of litigating each hurdle the legislature’s place in the way of the free trade of wine between the states, litigants would be well-advised to make sure their evidence is strong before entering court.
