Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query alcohol returned 24 results.

	RUBIN V. COORS BREWING CO., 514 U.S. 476 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BULLCOMING V. NEW MEXICO [Syllabus]
	44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. #1 V. REDDING [Syllabus]
	EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER [Syllabus]
	IOWA V. TOVAR [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. LIDSTER [Syllabus] Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, at which checkpoint law enforcement officers briefly stopped all oncoming motorists to hand out flyers about—and look for witnesses to—the offense, where the checkpoint was conducted exactly one week after—and at approximately the same time of day as—the offense, and where the checkpoint otherwise met the reasonableness standard articulated in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
	ROMPILLA V. BEARD [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BEAN [Syllabus] The absence of an actual denial by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of a felon's petition for relief from firearms disabilities precludes judicial review under 18 U. S. C. §925(c).
	GRANHOLM V. HEALD [Syllabus]
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GROH V. RAMIREZ [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly ruled that a law enforcement officer violated clearly established law, and thus was personally liable in damages and not entitled to qualified immunity, when at the time he acted there was no decision by the Supreme Court or any other court so holding, and the only lower court decisions addressing the issue had found the same conduct did not violate the law?
	BEGAY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FEDERAL EMPLOYEES V. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 526 U.S. 86 (1999) [Syllabus]
	MILNER V. DEPARTMENT OF NAVY [Syllabus]
	PASQUANTINO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LEOCAL V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus]
	OVERTON V. BAZZETTA [Syllabus] In 1995, the Michigan Department of Corrections revised its prison visitation policy to: (1) prohibit visits by a minor child, unless the minor is the child, stepchild or grandchild of the prisoner; (2) prohibit visits by a prisoner's child when the prisoner's parental rights have been terminated; (3) require that all visiting minor children be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian; (4) prohibit visits by former inmates unless the former inmate is in the prisoner's immediate family; and (5) impose a ban on visitation for a minimum of two years for any inmate found guilty of two or more major misconduct's for substance abuse. Do these restrictions, as set forth above, (a) violate a right of intimate association under the First Amendment as retained by a incarcerated felon or (b) constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
	LILLY V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	YOUNG V. HARPER, 520 U.S. 143 (1997). [Syllabus]
	LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPT. V. UNITED REPORTINGPUBLISHING CORP. [Syllabus] Whether the government violates the First Amendment when it releases records but forbids their commercial use?
	SKINNER V. SWITZER [Syllabus]