City of St. Paul v. Kessler
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendants were arrested upon a complaint charging them with violating the city ordinance mentioned in the first sentence of the opinion. In lieu of the taking of testimony in the muncipal court of St. Paul the facts were stipulated by the parties. The court, Finehout, J., found the ordinance valid and the defendants guilty as charged in the complaint. From the judgment of conviction, defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
In the municipal court of the city of St. Paul, defendants were convicted of violating an ordinance of the city prohibiting the location *125and operation of an undertaking establishment or funeral home in a residence district. They appeal.
Section 1 of the ordinance provides: “No undertaking or embalming business shall be carried on, and no moytuary chapel, funeral home, vault, or other house, building, structure or receptacle for the preparation of the dead for burial or for the reception, deposit, or keeping of the dead bodies of human beings shall be established, opened, kept or maintained in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Rowland v. . MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Saier v. JoyMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Densmore v. Evergreen Camp No. 147Washington Supreme Court · 1910
- Osborn v. City of ShreveportSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1918
- State ex rel. Lachtman v. HoughtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- State Ex Rel. v. HoughtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- State ex rel. Beery v. HoughtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Bragg v. IvesCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1927
- Power v. NordstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- L. D. Pearson & Son v. BonnieCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1925
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.