Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the government had failed to show a compelling interest in prosecuting religious adherents for drinking a sacramental tea containing a Schedule I controlled substance. [1]
An Ohio law prohibiting cities from banning the sale of flavored tobacco products is unconstitutional, a judge has ruled. The state is expected to appeal the ruling issued Friday by Franklin ...
Tully sold its North American wholesale coffee-bean distribution business, brand (which it licensed back for $1/year in perpetuity), and roasting operation to Green Mountain Coffee Roasters in 2009, earning $40.3 million in the deal, allowing the company to pay off 100% of its debt, including trade debt, make a cash distribution to shareholders, and maintain substantial cash reserves for the ...
Stella May Liebeck was born in Norwich, England, on December 14, 1912.She was 79 at the time of the burn incident. On February 27, 1992, Liebeck ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a McDonald's restaurant at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Soft drink size limit protest sign placed on a delivery truck by New York's Pepsi bottler. The sugary drinks portion cap rule, [1] [2] also known as the soda ban, [2] was a proposed limit on soft drink size in New York City intended to prohibit the sale of many sweetened drinks more than 16 fluid ounces (0.47 liters) in volume to have taken effect on March 12, 2013. [3]
Multiple Target employees were fired after they bought limited edition cups from the exclusive Starbucks x Stanley collaboration. Seven Target workers from across the US revealed to Business ...
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public ...