State v. Kusick
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was indicted by the grand jury of St. Louis county charged with the crime of unlawfully storing and possessing intoxicating liquor for sale, tried in the district court for that county before Hughes, J., and a jury and found guilty as charged in the indictment. From an order denying her motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.
The defendant was indicted for having in her possession in St. Loui; county on December 28, 1918, intoxicating liquor for sale. She wa *2found guilty and appeals from the order denying her motion for a new trial. There was no proof that St. Louis county had voted to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor pursuant to the provisions of the county local option statute. Laws 1915, p. 24, e. 23. The question presented is whether the court will take judicial notice of the fact and result of an election had pursuant to the statute. The court of course takes notice of the local option statute.…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Grider v. TallySupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- State v. O'BrienMontana Supreme Court · 1907
- Mitchell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1911
- Woodard v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- State v. GutkeIdaho Supreme Court · 1914
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Glirbas v. City of Sioux FallsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1935
- Olson v. PedersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
- State v. SchmidtWashington Supreme Court · 1924