Legal Opinion
State v. Scheid
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided March 11, 1932No. 28,885PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.
The defendant Avas convicted of having in her possession intoxicating liquors for purpose of sale in violation of the city ordinance of Minneapolis. Minneapolis City Charter & Ordinances, 1872-1925, pp. 786-787; 47 Council Proceedings, 424r-426. She appeals from the judgment.
The ordinance makes it an offense to “have in possession for sale or transportation” intoxicating liquor. The tab charge in the municipal court alleged that the defendant had intoxicating liquor “for sale.” It Avas an essential to a crime that the defendant have possession for sale. State v. Tremont, 185 Minn. 101, 210 N.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. BolnickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- State v. HippsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- State v. RasmussonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- State v. KeefeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- City of Duluth v. SidenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. KellySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- City of Duluth v. CervenySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944