Legal Opinion
City of Rochester v. Bemel
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided December 5, 1930No. 28,076PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtHilton, J.
Defendant was charged with the offense of engaging in the junk dealing business in the city of Rochester without having obtained a license therefor as required by ordinance No. 115 of that city. He was convicted and appeals.
The ordinance is a valid one passed under authority conferred in the city charter and provides in § 1 thereof:
“No person shall engage in or carry on the business of a pawnbroker or of a junk dealer in the City of Rochester without having previously obtained a license so to do, as hereinafter provided.”
Upon conviction under that provision an offender is subject to a fine of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- City of Duluth v. KruppSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- State ex rel. Minces v. SohoenigSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- State ex rel. Scheffer v. JustusSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- State v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- Barton v. Recorder's CourtOregon Supreme Court · 1911
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bologno v. O'ConnellNew York Court of Appeals · 1959