Legal Opinion
State v. Sullivan
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided June 10, 1955No. 36,582, 36,583PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Matson, Justice.
Defendants appeal from an order denying their separate motions in the alternative for judgment or a new trial.
Defendants, Alice Sullivan and Regina Benike (herein designated as Sullivan and Benike), were each convicted of violating M. S. A. 155.01 and 155.02 of the Minnesota beauty culture act. By stipulation, both cases were consolidated and tried together. Sullivan was found guilty of operating and managing a beauty culture shop without a license and of failing to hire a licensed manager-operator to run same. Defendant Benike was convicted of unlawfully engaging without a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Noble State Bank v. HaskellSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Lee v. DelmontSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- State v. ZenoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Judd v. LandinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
- State Ex Rel. Pavlik v. JohannesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. ThonesavanhSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
- Major Liquors, Inc. v. City of OmahaNebraska Supreme Court · 1972
- Grudnosky v. BislowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Minnesota Board of Barber Examiners v. LauranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- In the MATTER OF the Application for Licensure of Nadeen GRIEPENTROGCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.