Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Scurlock v. Central Distributors, Inc.
Citations: 1954 Ark. LEXIS 786; 223 Ark. 954; 269 S.W.2d 790Docket: 5-470
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; July 5, 1954; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
An appeal is being addressed regarding the appropriate statute for the taxation, sale, and distribution of malt beverages with less than 5% alcohol by weight in Arkansas. The appellee, a wholesale distributor, sells Country Club Malt Liquor, which exceeds the 5% threshold and is regulated under Acts 108 and 109 of 1935. The appellee intends to distribute a new specialty beverage under the same name that contains less than 5% alcohol, which would classify it as 'beer or light wine' under Arkansas law. The appellants, including the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and the Commissioner of Revenues, informed the appellee that this new product would face taxation and regulation applicable to beverages with higher alcohol content, which could lead to the revocation of the appellee's wholesale dealer’s permit. The appellee seeks a court declaration that the new product be classified as beer or light wine, enabling its distribution under the respective regulations, and seeks protection from any adverse actions by the appellants related to non-compliance with laws governing higher-alcohol products. The appellants filed a demurrer, claiming the complaint did not establish a valid cause of action, which was overruled. A decree was issued stating that the new product is classified as beer or light wine for regulatory purposes, thus restraining the appellants from taking action against the appellee for not adhering to the regulations for higher-alcohol content beverages. The product in question is confirmed to be a malt beverage with less than 5% alcohol by weight, and the truth of the allegations regarding the appellants' advisements is acknowledged in the context of the demurrer. The relevant law defining beer and light wines was enacted in 1933, establishing the framework for their taxation and regulation. In 1935, Acts 108 and 109 established regulations for the sale of alcoholic beverages containing more than 5% alcohol by weight, explicitly excluding those with less than 5% from these provisions, which must instead comply with Act 7 of 1933. The alcoholic content of a beverage is pivotal in determining its classification for taxation and regulation. The chancellor's decision to apply the 1933 act to the product in question was upheld, and the demurrer was correctly overruled. Appellants argued that the term 'malt liquor' on the product's label should subject it to the stricter regulations for higher alcohol content beverages, referencing a previous case that distinguished between 'beer' and 'malt liquor.' However, the court found no statutory requirements regarding labeling or branding, and did not address whether the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board could regulate the use of 'malt liquor' in labeling. The decision was affirmed, confirming the proper application of the relevant statutes.