By: Derek Hawkins//August 22, 2017//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Winebow, Inc., v. Capitol-Husting Co.,
Case No.: 16-3682
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Statutory of Interpretation
The sole question before us is whether an “intoxicating liquor” dealership, as defined by Wis. Stat. § 135.02(3)(b), includes one that involves wine. If it does not, then Winebow is free to cease doing business with Capitol-Husting and L’Eft Bank Wine without further ado. If wine dealerships are covered, however, then Winebow cannot unilaterally terminate its relationship with the Distributors without a showing of good cause. Because this is an appeal from the grant of a judgment on the pleadings and concerns the interpretation of a statute, our review is de novo. See Laborers Local 236, AFL-CIO v. Walker, 749 F.3d 628, 632 (7th Cir. 2014); Boyd v. Illinois State Police, 384 F.3d 888, 896 (7th Cir. 2004).
We respectfully ask the Wisconsin Supreme Court to answer the following question: Does the definition of a dealership contained in Wis. Stat. § 135.02(3)(b) include wine grantor dealer relationships? We invite the Court to reformulate this question and expand its inquiry to the extent it is necessary to resolve this case. The Clerk of this court is instructed to send the full record of the case to the state supreme court for its use in the consideration of this request. QUESTION CERTIFIED.
Question Certified