State ex rel. New Strand Theatre Co. v. Common Council
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCrownhart, J.
Coming directly to the merits of the case, and assuming that the amended petition was before the *424court and duly considered, the question is: Do the facts stated in the petition show that the petitioner is entitled to a license to continue to run the dance hall ?
The petitioner is a corporation. It is objected that its application for a license was not signed by its president and secretary as required by ordinance. The petitioner contends that such failure is a mere matter of detail, and that such objection has no merit. There seems to have been a good purpose in having the application signed…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Mehlos v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
- Hogan v. City of BeloitWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
- Walsh v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
- Russell v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Corbett v. DuncanMississippi Supreme Court · 1885
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Kurkierewicz v. CannonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
- Cartwright v. SharpeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- Menzl v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- State ex rel. Milwaukee Sewerage Commission v. Board of SupervisorsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- List v. FestgeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.