Legal Opinion

Gee Wo v. State

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1893No. 5485PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Davis, J.

1Opinion of the Court

Maxwell, Ch. J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of practicing medicine in the state without lawful authority so to do as provided in the act of 1891, to establish a state board of health, and to regulate the practice of medicine in the state of Nebraska, and was sentenced to pay a fine and costs. The act of 1891 superseded the law of 1881. It *242appears from the record that the plaintiff in error in 1889 had filed the statement and affidavit required by the law of 1881, and was practicing under that law when the act of 1891 took effect. The first error alleged is that the information fails…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. People v. PhippinMichigan Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Milwaukee Medical College v. ChittendenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Ormsby County v. KearneyNevada Supreme Court · 1914
  3. State ex rel. Burroughs v. WebsterIndiana Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Enterprise Irrigation District v. Tri-State Land Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Vineyard Land & Stock Co. v. District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of ElkoNevada Supreme Court · 1918

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API