added presumption in Michigan

2003Thus, the LaRue Court held that California’s ban on “bacchanalian revelries” at establishments licensed to sell alcoholic beverages did not violate the United States Constitution “[g]iven the added presumption in favor of the validity of the state regulation in this area that the Twenty-first Amendment requires . . . .” Id. at 118-119 .

1980Given the added presumption in favor of the validity of the state regulation in this area that the Twenty-first Amendment requires, we cannot hold that the regulations on their face violate the Federal Constitution.” 409 US 109, 118-119 .

1997Given the added presumption in favor of the validity of the state regulation in this area that the Twenty-first Amendment requires, we cannot hold that the regulations on their face violate the Federal Constitution. [Id. at 118-119.] The holding in LaRue , that the broad power of the states to regulate the sale of liquor may outweigh any First Amendment interest in nude dancing, was reaffirmed in Doran v Salem Inn, Inc, 422 US 922 ; 95 S Ct 2561 ; 45 L Ed 2d 648 (1975), and New York State Liquor Authority v Bellanca, 452 US 714 ; 101 S Ct 2599 ; 69 L Ed 2d 357 (1981). 6 In Bellanca, id. at 718

1997Given the added presumption in favor of the validity of the state regulation in this area that the Twenty-first Amendment requires, we cannot hold that the regulations on their face violate the Federal Constitution. [Id. at 118-119.] The holding in LaRue , that the broad power of the states to regulate the sale of liquor may outweigh any First Amendment interest in nude dancing, was reaffirmed in Doran v Salem Inn, Inc, 422 US 922 ; 95 S Ct 2561 ; 45 L Ed 2d 648 (1975), and New York State Liquor Authority v Bellanca, 452 US 714 ; 101 S Ct 2599 ; 69 L Ed 2d 357 (1981). 6 In Bellanca, id. at 718

1997Given the added presumption in favor of the validity of the state regulation in this area that the Twenty-first Amendment requires, we cannot hold that the regulations on their face violate the Federal Constitution. [Id. at 118-119.] The holding in LaRue , that the broad power of the states to regulate the sale of liquor may outweigh any First Amendment interest in nude dancing, was reaffirmed in Doran v Salem Inn, Inc, 422 US 922 ; 95 S Ct 2561 ; 45 L Ed 2d 648 (1975), and New York State Liquor Authority v Bellanca, 452 US 714 ; 101 S Ct 2599 ; 69 L Ed 2d 357 (1981). 6 In Bellanca, id. at 718

1997Given the added presumption in favor of the validity of the state regulation in this area that the Twenty-first Amendment requires, we cannot hold that the regulations on their face violate the Federal Constitution. [Id. at 118-119.] The holding in LaRue , that the broad power of the states to regulate the sale of liquor may outweigh any First Amendment interest in nude dancing, was reaffirmed in Doran v Salem Inn, Inc, 422 US 922 ; 95 S Ct 2561 ; 45 L Ed 2d 648 (1975), and New York State Liquor Authority v Bellanca, 452 US 714 ; 101 S Ct 2599 ; 69 L Ed 2d 357 (1981). 6 In Bellanca, id. at 718

2024PT Today, Inc v Comm’r of the Office of Fin & Ins Serv, 270 Mich App 110, 143 ; 715 NW2d 398 (2006).

2024PT Today, Inc v Comm’r of the Office of Fin & Ins Serv, 270 Mich App 110, 143 ; 715 NW2d 398 (2006).

2023Relying on People v Lockett, 295 Mich App 165, 188 ; 814 NW2d 295 (2012), the trial court instructed the jury that penetration meant sexual intercourse, cunnilingus or any other intrusion, however slight, of any part of any person’s body or any object into the genital or anal openings, and includes any intrusion, however slight, into the vagina or labia majora. [Emphasis added.] The trial court gave this added instruction about the vagina and labia majora, per the prosecution’s request, to provide greater detail on what constituted an intrusion into the “genital opening.” Swider offers no lega

2015Id. at 237-238 .

2003The Supreme Court affirmed its holding in LaRue in at least three subsequent decisions: Doran v Salem Inn, Inc, 422 US 922 ; 95 S Ct 2561 ; 45 L Ed 2d 648 (1975), New York State Liquor Auth v Bellanca, 452 US 714 ; 101 S Ct 2599 ; 69 L Ed 2d 357 (1981), and Newport, Kentucky v Iacobucci, 479 US 92 ; 107 S Ct 383 ; 93 L Ed 2d 334 (1986).

2003The Supreme Court affirmed its holding in LaRue in at least three subsequent decisions: Doran v Salem Inn, Inc, 422 US 922 ; 95 S Ct 2561 ; 45 L Ed 2d 648 (1975), New York State Liquor Auth v Bellanca, 452 US 714 ; 101 S Ct 2599 ; 69 L Ed 2d 357 (1981), and Newport, Kentucky v Iacobucci, 479 US 92 ; 107 S Ct 383 ; 93 L Ed 2d 334 (1986).

1984Reversed and remanded for new trial. 1 Door v Valley Lumber Co, 254 Mich 694 ; 236 NW 910 (1931), and Nagy v Balogh, 337 Mich 691 ; 61 NW2d 47 (1953), were cited to the trial court by defendants in support of their request that the added instruction be given.

1984Reversed and remanded for new trial. 1 Door v Valley Lumber Co, 254 Mich 694 ; 236 NW 910 (1931), and Nagy v Balogh, 337 Mich 691 ; 61 NW2d 47 (1953), were cited to the trial court by defendants in support of their request that the added instruction be given.

1984Reversed and remanded for new trial. 1 Door v Valley Lumber Co, 254 Mich 694 ; 236 NW 910 (1931), and Nagy v Balogh, 337 Mich 691 ; 61 NW2d 47 (1953), were cited to the trial court by defendants in support of their request that the added instruction be given.

1984Reversed and remanded for new trial. 1 Door v Valley Lumber Co, 254 Mich 694 ; 236 NW 910 (1931), and Nagy v Balogh, 337 Mich 691 ; 61 NW2d 47 (1953), were cited to the trial court by defendants in support of their request that the added instruction be given.

1897That title, as passed in 1865 and since continued in all the acts, is, “To designate the holidays to be observed in the acceptance and payment of bills of exchange and promissory notes, in the holding of courts, and relative to the continuance of suits.” In Reithmiller v. People, 44 Mich. 280 , the respondent was convicted of an illegal sale of liquor on Christmas Day, it being alleged that the day was a legal holiday, on which such sales were forbidden.