Search for: "Beer v. United States" Results 21 - 40 of 462
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Dec 2023, 4:39 am
" Excerpt:The "free lunch" refers to the once-common tradition of saloons in the United States providing a "free" lunch to patrons who had purchased at least one drink. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 9:10 am by Marcel Pemsel
Background On 17 February 2022, the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (‘USOPC’) designated the EU in its IR no. 1645605 for the sign ‘TEAM USA’. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 9:04 pm by News Desk
To be entitled to compensation, the causal link between the beer contaminated by diethylene glycol and/or mono ethylene glycol and the damage to each person’s health must be recognized and confirmed by a unit of the MPMG. [read post]
13 Jul 2023, 10:15 am by Shea Denning
Four years after a plurality of the United States Supreme Court in Mitchell v. [read post]
9 Apr 2023, 9:30 pm by ernst
[On Tuesday, April 4, Georgetown Law devoted a session of its faculty workshop to honoring the publication of The Hughes Court: From Progressivism to Pluralism, 1930-1941 (Cambridge University Press, 2022), a volume in the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States, by Mark V. [read post]
3 Jan 2023, 6:00 am
Filed: June 29, 2022Holding: A Maryland statute that allowed certain beer, wine, and liquor license holders in a certain area of a legislative district to exchange their licenses for other licenses under certain circumstances and restricted the hours of operation for certain licensees in a separate area of the same legislative district did not violate the one subject requirement in Article III, § 29 of the Maryland Constitution and was not shown to violate equal… [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 5:23 am by Eugene Volokh
Beer Institute, Inc.[17] involved a Connecticut statute that required out-of-state beer shippers to affirm that prices posted for products sold to Connecticut wholesalers were, in the relevant period, no higher than prices in bordering states.[18] The Court invalidated these price affirmation schemes on the narrow grounds that they had the "practical effect of controlling . [read post]