Terre Haute Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Commission
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtNorth, J.
Upon plaintiff’s petition and our order to show why mandamus should not issue requiring the liquor control commission to approve plaintiff’s “Gold Label” beer label, defendant made a return. The question is whether on the record thus made plaintiff is entitled to mandamus.
Plaintiff, an Indiana corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of malt beverages, petitioned the Michigan liquor control commission, herein designated as defendant, to approve a. label to be used on plaintiff’s products sold in Michigan. Theretofore plaintiff’s label had been approved by the Federal Alcohol…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Noey v. City of SaginawMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
- Scott v. Arcada Township BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
- Amperse v. Common CouncilMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Post v. Township Board of SpartaMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Price v. Township BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
3Cited by11 opinions
- Boller Beverages, Inc. v. DavisSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1962
- Glicker v. Michigan Liquor Control CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1947
- Fitzpatrick v. Liquor Control CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
- Mallchok v. Liquor Control CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
- Black v. Liquor Control CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1948
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.