State v. Prickett
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Peterson, Justice.
Defendant was convicted in the district court of illegally having in his possession one frog more than 150 frogs in violation of L. 1918, c. 621, § 1, and appeals. The statute is quoted in the opinion on the prior appeal. S
The evidence is conclusive that defendant had in his possession in this state the number of frogs alleged; that the frogs were caught in the states of North Dakota and South Dakota and sold to one Steinhilber at his place of business in Fairmount, North Dakota, where they were loaded on a truck for transportation to Oshkosh, Wisconsin; and that at the time…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Commonwealth v. PetranichMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- State v. MimsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Terryll v. City of FaribaultSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- City of Oakland v. ButeauCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- Arlington Hotel Company v. FantSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. SchabertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
- Dean Van Horn Consulting Associates, Inc. v. WoldCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- Nees v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
- In Re Estate of BoysenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- Thompson v. BoysenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.