16885 research outputs found
Sort by
Independent Craft Breweries Struggle Under Distribution Laws that Create a Power Imbalance in Favor of Wholesalers
Get PDFIndependent craft breweries are facing historic challenges under the COVID-19 pandemic. To make matters worse, many states prohibit a brewery from terminating a distribution contract with a wholesaler absent statutorily defined “good cause,” which typically means fraud, bankruptcy, or other illegal conduct. In this context, lagging sales or poor distribution performance are not grounds for a brewery to terminate a distribution contract. This means that it is nearly impossible, legally or financially, for an independent craft brewery to terminate a distribution contract with an unsatisfactory wholesaler. In essence, states have statutorily tipped the balance of power in favor of distributors over independent craft breweries based on the allegations that large beer manufacturers have too much bargaining power over distributors. One size does not fit all. Indeed, California is currently entertaining a bill to move from a more permissive relationship between breweries and distributors (allowing for termination generally) to a much more strict good cause model that other states have adopted. States must re-evaluate their distribution laws and reject good cause standards that tie a small brewery to a distributor in perpetuity. Stated plainly, good cause distribution statutes harm independent craft breweries, competition, and ultimately consumers
Don\u27t Call It a Comeback
No full textFor much of our nation’s history, courts asked whether government physically intruded on property to determine if it violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court later adopted a standard looking at whether the government violated an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” But in recent years, the property-based approach has been making a comeback, most recently in Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent in Carpenter v. United States. Will the property-based approach knock out the reasonable expectation of privacy test? Tune in to find out
Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Journal, Volume 10
Get PDFWhere Theory Meets Practice
October 1-2, 2020
Panel 1: Where Theory Meets Practice: A Tribute to Henry E. Smith
Panel 2: The Housing Crisis
Lunch Roundtable: Emerging Issues in Takings and Eminent Domain Law
Panel 3: The Reach of Government\u27s Confiscatory Powers Over Exigencies and Emergencies
Panel 4: The Risk of Unjust Compensationhttps://scholarship.law.wm.edu/propertyjournal/1010/thumbnail.jp
APPENDIX: Board Gender Diversity: A Path to Achieving Substantive Equality in the United States
Get PDFAppendix to article in William & Mary Law Review vol. 63, no. 2 (2021), Board Gender Diversity: A Path to Achieving Substantive Equality in the United States by Kimberly A. Houser and Jamillah Bowen Williams
Moot Court: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (recording)
No full textThe Supreme Court will decide this Term whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a gun outside the home. At issue in the case that will be mooted is a New York law that requires a person who wants to carry a concealed firearm outside the home to show “proper cause” – meaning a special need for self-protection. Two men challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the law
