Legal Opinion

Hurst v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 1976No. State 216 (1974)PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHanley, J.

Two issues are presented on this appeal:

1. Is phencyclidine a dangerous drug within sec. 161.30 (1) (a) 1, Stats. 1969, and did the complaint establish it as such?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to three years’ imprisonment?

Hurst was charged under sec. 161.30 (2), Stats. 1969, with the delivery of a dangerous drug without a prescription. Sec. 161.30 (1) provides the definitions:

“(a) ‘Dangerous drug’ means any of the following:
“1. Any drug or drug-containing preparation which is subject to the provisions of ss. SOS (c) and 50S (b) of the federal food, drug…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Evanow v. SeraphimWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  2. State Ex Rel. Neelen v. LucasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Kindy v. HayesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Morrissette v. DeZoniaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  5. State Ex Rel. Klingler & Schilling v. BairdWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Northridge Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Village of Shorewood v. SteinbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. BritzkeCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1982
  4. Kammes v. State, Mining Investment & Local Impact Fund BoardCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1983
  5. Kenosha County Department of Social Services v. NelsenCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1980

6 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