In the 1923 case of Gnerich et al., Copartners, Doing Business Under The Firm Name Of B. & S. Drug Company v. Rutter, as Prohibition Director in and for the District of California, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding alcohol sales during prohibition. The plaintiffs were a drug company who had been selling medicinal whiskey under a government permit but were later accused by Rutter (the defendant) of violating prohibition laws due to alleged non-compliance with regulations governing such sales. They sought an injunction against his interference with their business operations based on their claim that they complied fully with all necessary requirements and regulations. The court held that while it was true that certain exceptions existed allowing for legal sale of alcoholic substances during this period (such as for medical purposes), these exceptions needed to be strictly adhered to within very specific parameters defined by law - any deviation from which could constitute violation deserving prosecution or other intervention by authorities like Rutter. Therefore, despite having initially obtained permission to sell medicinal whiskey legally, if there was reasonable cause suggesting possible violations or misuse of this privilege then officials like Rutter would have full authority and justification in taking appropriate action against them.

In the dissenting opinion for Gnerich et al., Copartners, Doing Business Under the Firm Name of B. & S. Drug Company v. Rutter, as Prohibition Director in and for the District of California, 1923 case, it was argued that there had been a misinterpretation of Section 6 (a) and (b) of Title II under Volstead Act by majority justices which led to an incorrect ruling against Gnerich et al.. The dissenting justice believed that these sections did not prohibit pharmacists from selling alcohol-containing medicine without prescription if they were sold in good faith for medicinal purposes only. He further pointed out that such sales have always been considered legal before prohibition era and should continue to be so unless explicitly prohibited by law - something he claimed Volstead Act didn't do. Therefore, according to him, punishing pharmacists like Gnerich et al., who operated within this traditional understanding would be unjust.