|
|
|
Wineries Fight State Shipping Laws
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/12/10 17:52
|
Unionville Vineyards plans to expand by planting more pinot noir and adding Rhone varietals next year, but winemaker Cameron Stark knows he's fighting an uphill battle.
He recognizes New Jersey's reputation as a wine producer isn't exactly that of California or even Oregon. But vineyards here and in a dozen other states face another hurdle because of their states' stringent wine shipping laws, which wineries say are stymieing their growth and consumers say are limiting their choices.
"If laws changed, I think it would dramatically affect our business," said Stark, who came to Unionville from Napa Valley.
Many regions across the country are trying to become another Napa Valley or Sonoma, with wine industries that attract tourists.
But laws in some states still prohibit wineries from shipping directly to consumers, two years after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling led many to believe that all states would allow vineyards to ship wine directly to consumers across the country.
The Supreme Court ruling overturned laws in New York and Michigan that prohibited consumers from buying wine directly from out-of-state wineries. Wineries and consumers had sued, alleging those states violated the Constitution because they allowed in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers but prevented shipments from out-of-state.
The court said either all wineries should be allowed to ship directly to consumers or none, but each state still decides whether to allow shipments.
In the states where direct shipping is still banned, it often amounts to battle between wineries that want new customers and wholesalers who want to keep the system intact where intermediaries are a required step between wineries and customers. Wineries can also keep more profit if they don't rely on a wholesaler or retail store.
Allowing direct shipping would add another benefit for less prominent regions whose wines haven't been reviewed by influential wine publications, which don't want to write about wines that aren't accessible to everyone, said Jim Trezise, president of the New York Wine & Grape Foundation.
"In order to get broad-based respect, you need national distribution," he said. "You can get respect, but it's narrowly focused with the few people who can get your wines."
The ruling and a subsequent new state law allowed New Yorkers to receive wine from California and other states.
At the same time, it also opened channels of commerce to allow consumers in other states to directly receive New York wines, Trezise said. He noted that last year, the Finger Lakes region of New York State and the North Fork of Long Island landed on the cover of Wine Spectator.
That's attention emerging regions can only dream about.
Curtis Wallin, owner of Holly Ridge Winery in Livingston, Tenn., said the Internet has spurred interest from potential customers around the country, and he would like to be able to ship to whoever wants to buy his 35 varieties of wine. He said legislators in Tennessee aren't pushing for changing the shipping laws.
"We'd see between 30 and 40 percent increase of sales," said Wallin, who produces about 1,500 cases annually. "We're just a small winery and that's why shipping would mean a lot to us."
Bill Nelson, president of WineAmerica, the national trade association of American wineries, said bills died in Arkansas and Oklahoma this year, but there is legislative interest in a few states for next year.
One of those is New Jersey. About 3.3 percent of the nation's table wine — or 11.5 million cases, according the 2006 Adams Wine Handbook — was consumed last year in the Garden State, making it the most populous state with restrictive shipping laws, Nelson said.
Wineries in New Jersey cannot ship wine, and consumers cannot receive direct shipments from any state, including New Jersey.
With nearly three dozen wineries and more opening next year, New Jersey is looking to promote wine as an economic development strategy, said state Agriculture Secretary Charles Kuperus.
State Senator Ray Lesniak and Assemblyman John Burzichelli, who chair economic development committees, say they support changes to the shipping laws.
"I think a free flow of goods and services is good for the economy and good for the consumer," said Lesniak, who favors wines from Bordeaux and Burgundy. "The more we restrict trade, the less quality of services you get and the higher the price to the consumer and it damages the economy."
Burzichelli said he doesn't agree with the argument that shipping wine is a public safety concern because of arguments that underage drinkers would buy wine on the Internet.
"I grew up in households where there were barrels of homemade wines in the basement," he said.
They're likely to find opposition from New Jersey wholesalers. Lobbyist Jeffrey Warsh said wholesalers' concerns are public safety and taxation, and not losing their cut of profits.
"I'm surprised that the public safety concerns are so minimized in favor of commercial interests," he said.
He said wholesalers wouldn't be affected by the "small, obscure vineyards producing small batches of product."
But those are the exactly types of wines that Matt Wagner would like to have shipped to him from California: Kosta Browne and Merry Edwards Wines in Sonoma or Robert Hall Winery in Paso Robles.
"Basically, I can't get the wine I want," said Wagner, 29, of North Plainfield, N.J.
He enjoys boutique wines with small production that aren't sold in local stores. He also wants to buy directly from vineyards he and his wife have visited on vacations.
"There are ways around it," he said. "If you have relatives who live in Illinois, you can say, 'Hey, hold on to it until I see you next year.'"
Unlike New Jersey, Illinois allows direct shipping from wineries to consumers.
A 2003 federal lawsuit working its way through the court system in New Jersey also says consumers cannot get the wine they want because of shipping laws.
New shipping laws would help wineries as they try to grow, said Tom Sharko, owner of Alba Vineyard in Finesville, N.J., which produces about 13,000 cases per year with 60 percent of sales at the winery. He is planting more chardonnay, Riesling and pinot noir on his 93 1/2 acres, adding to foch, chambourcin and cayuga grapes.
He'd like to start a wine club and ship a few bottles per month to customers on a mailing list.
"There are wine clubs in California that sell their whole production that way," he said. "Instead of relying totally on a New Jersey base for customers, we would have a United States base of customers." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Battle Looms over Nina Wang's Estate
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/12/10 17:41
|
A High Court judge in Hong Kong Monday appointed an administrator to oversee the estate of Asia's richest woman, the late Nina Wang, ahead of an anticipated court battle over her fortune estimated to be at least 4.2 billion dollars.
Wang, 69, the former chairwoman of the Chinachem property empire, died of cancer in April, apparently leaving her entire fortune to a part-time feng shui master Chan Chun Cheun.
The will is being challenged by relatives acting through a Chinachem charitable foundation and judge Andrew Cheung said at a hearing Monday he expected a 'protracted' litigation over the huge fortune.
Speaking after the hearing, Chan's solicitor Jonathan Midgley, who had sought an administration order on behalf of Chan, said he still hoped the case could be settled outside court.
Wang was named as the richest woman in Asia in 2006 with a fortune estimated at 4.2 billion dollars, although some estimates suggested her real worth may have been closer to 13 billion dollars.
With no children of her own, Wang wrote a new will in 2006, two years after her ovarian cancer was diagnosed, making 48-year-old Chan her sole beneficiary.
However, her sisters and other relatives filed suit to fight for her estate, which was originally shared between charities and family members in an earlier 2002 will.
Chan is an expert in feng shui, the ancient Chinese practice of placement and arrangement of space to achieve harmony with the environment, and is consulted by property developers for readings.
Wang herself died only shortly after winning an eight-year legal battle over the fortune of her husband Teddy, which she inherited after he was kidnapped in 1990 and later declared dead when no trace of him was ever found.
She built his company, Chinachem, up into a multi-billion-dollar business empire, but initially lost a probate battle with her father-in-law.
In a 2002 hearing, Hong Kong's High Court heard claims that Nina Wang had an affair in the 1960s which led Teddy to cut her out of his will, although they remained married.
Appellate court judges initially ruled she had probably forged the will of her late husband and, after the ruling, police charged Nina Wang with forgery.
The charges were dropped, however, after Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal overturned the probate decision and ruled there was no evidence to support the claim that Wang had forged the will.
Despite her enormous wealth, Wang, who had her hair in pigtails and wore mini-skirts well into her 60s, was notoriously frugal, once claiming she needed only around 400 dollars a month to live. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal Court Hears Pledge, Motto Cases
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/12/05 17:45
|
| An atheist pleaded with a federal appeals court to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, saying the references disrespect his religious beliefs. "I want to be treated equally," said Michael Newdow, who argued the cases consecutively to a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. He added that supporters of the phrases "want to have their religious views espoused by the government." Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued his daughter's school district in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children in another district. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento again found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional. The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit's ruling in Newdow's first case. Terence Cassidy, a lawyer for the school district, argued Tuesday that reciting the pledge is simply a "patriotic exercise" and a reminder of the traditions of the U.S. "How is pledging allegiance to a nation under God not a religious act?" Judge Dorothy W. Nelson asked. Cassidy said the pledge has religious elements but is not a religious exercise. Newdow said the pledge has "tons of religious significance. That's why everyone gets so angry when we talk about ... taking it out." Nelson asked Cassidy whether removing the words "under God" would make the pledge any less patriotic. "Not necessarily," he replied, arguing it provided a historical context, not a religious one. Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, and passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust" a year later. Congress first authorized a reference to God on money in 1864. In describing the historical context for use of the word "God," the government cited the Declaration of Independence, which states that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." In 2005, Newdow sued Congress and several federal officials, arguing the motto's presence on coins and currency violated his First Amendment rights. A federal judge in Sacramento ruled against him last year, and Newdow appealed. On Tuesday, Justice Department lawyer Lowell Sturgill Jr. said "In God We Trust" is not an endorsement of a particular faith, but simply a patriotic or ceremonial message. Judge Stephen Reinhardt indicated support for Newdow's position. The "In God We Trust" motto "affects Mr. Newdow every moment of his life," Reinhardt said. "The government has no compelling interest to put a slogan on a dollar bill." Newdow said he didn't advocate hostility toward God or religion and respected people's right to their own beliefs. He said he wanted equal respect for atheists. About 20 Newdow supporters in the courtroom and outside the courthouse wore T-shirts touting evolution and atheism and carried signs supporting the separation of church and state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court mulls racial bias in juror selection
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/12/05 15:44
|
| A deeply torn Supreme Court on Tuesday probed the actions of a Louisiana prosecutor who eliminated all blacks from a jury pool, then invoked the O.J. Simpson case in urging the all-white jury to sentence a black man to death. Prosecutor James Williams said the "perpetrator" in that famous California case "got away with it." Allen Snyder, who was then sentenced to die for killing his estranged wife's friend, claims the prosecutor unconstitutionally excluded prospective black jurors. Snyder said the prosecutor's reference during the 1996 trial to Simpson, who a year earlier was acquitted of killing his ex-wife and her friend, helped reveal his biased intent. The justices appeared divided over the case, which could clarify standards for defendants who claim racial bias in jury selection. An overriding question is how deeply appeals courts should scrutinize the circumstances when a prosecutor purges blacks from a jury and a judge accepts the reasons as race-neutral, for example, that a potential juror seemed nervous. A 1986 case, Batson v. Kentucky, bars prosecutors from using their allotted "peremptory," or discretionary, challenges during jury selection to strike someone because of race. The justices have emphasized in recent rulings that the exclusion of minorities undermines the integrity of the justice system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teen Pleads Guilty to Highway Shootings
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/12/05 10:51
|
| A teenager pleaded guilty to reduced charges Monday in a series of Indiana highway sniper shootings that left one man dead and another wounded. Zachariah Blanton, 18, of Gaston, had been scheduled to stand trial next week on charges of murder, attempted murder and criminal recklessness. He pleaded guilty in Jackson Circuit Court to lesser charges of voluntary manslaughter with a deadly weapon and criminal recklessness. A judge must still approve Blanton's deal with prosecutors. Sentencing is set for Dec. 27, and Blanton could receive anything between 20 years and 50 years in prison. Prosecutors say Blanton fired his hunting rifle into highway traffic from an overpass about 60 miles south of Indianapolis on July 23, 2006. One of the shots went through a pickup truck's windshield and killed 40-year-old Jerry L. Ross. An Iowa man traveling in another pickup truck was injured. Police say Blanton later shot at cars along another highway northeast of Indianapolis, but no one was injured. Blanton, who was 17 at the time, was arrested at his home two days later. Blanton's defense attorney did not publicly comment after court and did not immediately return a phone call. Blanton confessed to the shooting and provided police with details, police have said. Blanton told police he fired the shots to relieve pressure after he argued with fellow participants in a southern Indiana hunting trip. Blanton confirmed the motive in court Monday. Ross's relatives, wearing "Justice for Jerry" buttons outside the courthouse, said they were unhappy with the deal. His father, 70-year-old Jesse Ross, said a jury should decide Blanton's fate. "Twelve people would be about as fair as it could be, it couldn't get no better than that," he said. "I don't think this is right, the way they're doing it. All we want is a fair trial because you can't bring nothing back." Blanton "committed those crimes, he should be standing trial for them," said Jerry's twin brother, Terry Ross, who was in the truck with his brother when he was shot. "He didn't give Jerry any kind of a deal." Prosecutor Rick Poynter said he had to make the deal based on the strength of his case. He noted that the judge had ruled that statements Blanton gave police were inadmissible. If Blanton had been convicted of murder, he could have faced 45 to 65 years in prison. But Poynter said the jury also could have acquitted him or found him guilty of reckless homicide, a lesser crime punishable by two to eight years in prison. Poynter said that although he understood the family's reaction, "I think they would be a lot more emotional if the killer of their loved one walked out of jail in four years." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NJ top court upholds killer's death sentence
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/12/04 14:12
|
A unanimous state Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the death sentence for Ambrose Harris, ruling that the special circumstances that removed another killer from death row did not apply to Harris. The 7-0 decision rejected the latest appeal by Harris, finding that the inmate could not muster a majority of sitting justices who had sided with him on prior appeals. The ruling, however, may have little practical effect for Harris and the seven other inmates on the state's death row at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, since New Jersey may be on the verge of scrapping the death penalty.
Harris was represented by the state public defender's office, which had no immediate comment.
The attorney general's office had no immediate comment.
Harris, 55, had been sentenced to death in 1996 for murdering Kristin Huggins, 22, of Lower Makefield, Pa., whom he kidnapped and raped in 1992.
The Harris ruling is based on a July 2006 decision in which the state Supreme Court overturned the death sentence for Anthony DiFrisco, a hit man who said he was paid $2,500 to shoot a Maplewood pizzeria owner in 1986.
DiFrisco's successful appeal centered on complex procedural issues involving the type and timing of reviews afforded in capital cases. The ruling determined that DiFrisco's death sentence must be overturned because a majority of justices had voted _ at various times and for various reasons _ to sentence him to life in prison.
The court did not find the same circumstances existed for Harris. It noted that to find four justices who had voted to overturn his death penalty, Harris essentially counted one justice twice.
While in prison in September 1999, Harris killed a fellow death row inmate, kicking and stomping 48-year-old Robert "Mudman" Simon to death. A jury in 2001 found that Harris acted in self-defense and found him innocent of murder and manslaughter charges.
On Monday, New Jersey moved closer to becoming the first state to abolish the death penalty since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976 when a Senate committee approved replacing capital punishment with life in prison without parole. The full Senate is to consider the bill before the legislative session ends on Jan. 8, and the bill should get a vote by the full Assembly this month. Gov. Jon S. Corzine, a death penalty foe, supports the bill.
New Jersey reinstated the death penalty in 1982, but hasn't executed anyone since 1963. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
