State v. Shattuck
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the municipal court of Minneapolis, C. L. Smith, J.
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
The defendants on April 4, 1905, were convicted in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis of the alleged offense of selling on December 5, 1904, a certain game bird, known as “ruffed grouse.” They appealed from the judgment, and here urge two reasons why it should be reversed.
The here material provisions of the statute upon which the conviction is based are as follows:
No person shall * * * sell to any one, have in possession with intent to sell or have in possession or under control, at any time any * * * ruffed grouse, * * * except that any * * * ruffed grouse or pheasant may be…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Barbier v. ConnollySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Geer v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific Railroad v. JacobsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Ex parte MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- State v. RodmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. Fairmont Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Eager v. Jonesboro, Lake City & Eastern Express Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Ex Parte BlardoneCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1909
- People v. LassenMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
- Waldo v. GouldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.