Mid-West Wine Co. Inc. v. Ericson
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1997, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Application of Minnegasco (Minn. 1997)
- Brosdahl v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
- H & S COMPANY v. Minnesota State Board of Pharmacy (Minn. 1960)
- ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY CO. v. City of St. Paul (Minn. 1960)
- Barnes v. MacKen (Minn. 1958)
- Muggenburg Ex Rel. Muggenburg v. Leighton (Minn. 1953)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from an order sustaining defendant’s demurrer to the complaint.
This is an action by a taxpayer and licensee under L. 1947, c. 528, to restrain defendant as state liquor control commissioner from approving manifests for the importation into this state of wines for resale in this state by concerns not licensed under c. 528 to manufacture or wholesale wines. A number of amici curiae, representing wholesalers and manufacturers of intoxicating liquors holding unexpired licenses issued under M. S. A. 340.11 prior to the enactment *25 of c. 528, participated in the argument before the trial court in support of the contention of defendant and, by order of this court, were granted permission to file a joint brief on this appeal.
L. 1947, c. 528, amended M. S. A. 340.11, subd. 12, and the question presented is whether c. 528 should be construed as prohibiting holders of licenses acquired prior to its passage under § 340.11, subd. 12, from selling wine from and after the passage of c. 528, except for the fact that the question has now become moot by virtue of two circumstances.
First, the court will take judicial notice of the fact that the licenses issued under § 340.11, subd. 12, all expired prior to June 30, 1948, so there is no real controversy remaining between the parties which could be decided.
Second, L. 1947, c. 528, is declared unconstitutional by this court in the companion case of George Benz Sons, Inc. v. Ericson, 227 Minn. 1, 34 N. W. (2d) 725, filed herewith. In view of that holding, it is apparent on the face of plaintiff’s complaint that it can have no cause of action.
It is well settled that if, pending an appeal, an event occurs which renders it impossible to grant any relief or which makes a decision unnecessary, the appeal will be dismissed. 1 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 463.
Appeal dismissed as presenting a moot question.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.