Legal Opinion

People v. Kupusinac

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 3, 1933No. Docket No. 206, Calendar No. 36,619PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtButzel, J.

Defendant Obread Kupusinac was convicted of pursuing the trade of an itinerant vendor and hawker of drugs and toilet preparations without first securing a license, as provided for under Act No. 85, Pub. Acts 1923. The pertinent provisions -of this law, also found in 2 Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 9704, 9705, are as follows:

“Section 1. Any itinerant or traveling vendor or hawker of any drug, nostrum, face powder, face cream, face bleach, face lotion, cosmetic, tooth powder, tooth paste, dentifrice, or other toilet preparation, or any ointment or application of any kind for the treatment of any disease,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Chaddock v. DayMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  2. City of Duluth v. KruppSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
  3. People v. RussellMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
  4. State v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1909
  5. City of Muskegon v. ZeerypMichigan Supreme Court · 1903

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. People v. RiksenMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Mooney v. Unemployment Compensation CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Detroit Retail Druggists' Ass'n v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Jewel Tea Co. v. Board of PharmacyMichigan Supreme Court · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API