- Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report
- Patriot Act author on James Clapper: Fire, prosecute him
- Russia P.M. Medvedev: No amnesty for political prisoners
- Michigan GOP Senate hopeful reminds government is the ‘servant’
- Christmas, by Congress: Members mull a 15-cent tax on trees
- U.S. unemployment falls to five-year low of 7 percent; 203K jobs added
- World mourns Nelson Mandela and celebrates his life; burial set for Dec. 15
- Bill O’Reilly reminds: Nelson Mandela ‘was a communist’
- John Boehner says GOP should support gay candidates: ‘I do’
- Grass-Whopper: Pan-fried cricket burgers go over big in New York City
American Scene: CDC says West Nile cases rise 40% in one week
Question of the Day
The Utah Hospitality Association sued in federal court, claiming Utah’s law prohibiting establishments from offering discounted drinks or happy hour violates the Sherman Act, which protects against anticompetitive conduct.
The lawsuit was dismissed this week after the parties settled their dispute, according to court records.
Allen Whittle, the association’s vice president and owner of Bogeys Social Club, said the state agreed to allow establishments to change their drink prices daily, but they’re still not allowed to advertise them as specials or discounts.
He claimed that the settlement is a partial victory but said the group might sue again over the ban on advertising, claiming it is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
“We disagree with it, but that’s what they’re telling us we have to do,” he said Wednesday. “We just can’t call them discounts or specials.
“Happy hour has been illegal in the state for years,” he added. “We were just fighting to have drink specials and basically be able to change our pricing daily if we want to.”
An initial lawsuit was dismissed in March by a federal judge who cited a lack of evidence proving Utah’s existing liquor laws hurt businesses. The association filed an amended complaint the next month, and the state again sought a dismissal.
Witness: 4th wife mulled extorting Drew Peterson
JOLIET — A lawyer says Drew Peterson’s fourth wife asked him shortly before she vanished about whether she could squeeze more money out of her husband in divorce proceedings if she threatened to tell police he had killed his third wife.
Harry Smith’s testimony Wednesday at the former Illinois police officer’s murder trial came as the defense sought to counter allegations Mr. Peterson killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in 2004.
Savio’s death was reclassified from an accident to a homicide after Mr. Peterson’s fourth wife disappeared in 2007.
Mr. Smith testified that Stacy Peterson had called him and asked, in Mr. Smith’s words, “if the fact that [Drew Peterson] killed [Savio] could be used against him.”
The defense wants to dent the credibility of testimony from someone who said Stacy Peterson implicated her husband in Savio’s death.
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Obama administration issues permits for wind farms to kill more eagles
- MILLER: Obamacare enrollees include 101 members of the House of Representatives
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- Rush Limbaugh: Obama trying to make Mandela death about himself
- EDITORIAL: Our ideological president
- Federal deficit shrinks 20 percent in fiscal 2014
- Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress
- PRUDEN: British press horrified as London's new mayor dares to proclaim the truth
- Hola: Boehner prepares to push amnesty bill through House
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
The Constitution: Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses. And how to get from here to there.
Why can’t humans just be free to be humans?
Get in the middle of all the action inside and outside the boxing ring.
Find the latest news and happening that effect those in the Washington D.C., Northern Virginia and Maryland Metro region.
White House pets gone wild!