United States Sixth Circuit

An intervenor does have standing to appeal an adverse judgment, even if the state declines to appeal it, if the intervenor can independently demonstrate that he fulfills the requirements of Article III. In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit successfully challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of Kentucky's laws regulating small farm wineries, the judgment below is affirmed where the district court correctly found that the in-person purchase requirement in portions of Kentucky' s statutory scheme discriminated against interstate commerce by limiting the ability of out-of-state small farm wineries to sell and ship wine to Kentucky consumers.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/24/2008
• Published 12/24/2008

Judges

• Before: CLAY and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges;  STAFFORD, Senior District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Kenneth S. Handmaker, Middleton & Reutlinger, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant.  James Alexander Tanford, Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington, Indiana, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  Kenneth S. Handmaker, Kevin L. Chlarson, Middleton & Reutlinger, Louisville, Kentucky, Daniel R. Meyer, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant.  James Alexander Tanford, Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington, Indiana, for Appellees.  Carter G. Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C., Robert S. Jones, Office of the Attorney General, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Amici Curiae.