Search for: "Beer v. United States"
Results 81 - 100
of 519
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jan 2012, 9:03 pm
United States v. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 2:32 am
In Lambert v. [read post]
29 Nov 2017, 1:21 pm
Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Carpenter v. [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 8:25 am
On August 25, 2015, Respondent left with NIR for the United States. [read post]
Myong Nam Kim v. Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City (Md. Ct. of Spec. Appeals)
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]
1 Oct 2019, 6:10 am
” Defendant reported he would drink “four to five 40 ounce beers a day. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 11:55 am
In the opening brief in United States v. [read post]
29 Jun 2016, 8:30 am
ESRT Empire State Building, LLC v. [read post]
12 Aug 2009, 5:19 am
In fact, “Plaintiffs have not identified any indicators that other U.S. beer brewers believed that InBev was poised to enter the United States beer market. [read post]
14 Jul 2020, 4:14 am
" As to meaning, applicant's mark "suggests a subset of Opposer's TEQUILA emanating from or associated with the United States of America. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 8:26 am
EEOC v. [read post]
11 Jun 2007, 11:51 pm
The suit, captioned United States of America, Ex Rel. [read post]
27 Nov 2018, 12:57 pm
In Craft Beer Stellar, LLC v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:14 am
United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960); see State v. [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 1:52 pm
As explained in the case of United Biscuits v Asda [1997] RPC 513, customers might be misled by the similarities of get-up, confusion has a broad interpretation and does not require an intention to deceive. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 8:47 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Jan 2007, 1:20 pm
Accord, United States v. [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 5:53 am
Moreover, under United States v. [read post]
