Legal Opinion

Thielen v. Kostelecky

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 29, 1939No. File No. 6599PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCi-iristianson, J.

Tbe plaintiff instituted this mandamus proceeding in the district court of Stark county to compel tbe city commission of tbe city of Dickinson to issue to him a license to engage in business in tbe city of Dickinson as a retailer of alcohol and alcoholic beverages (as defined by chap. 259, Laws 1937). After bearing, tbe trial court ordered that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue, directed to tbe defendants and ordering them to forthwith issue a license to tbe plaintiff. Tbe defendants have appealed to this court from tbe decision of tbe district court.'

The facts necessary to an understanding…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. St. Louis v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. State v. BargeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
  3. People ex rel. Fitzgerald v. HarrisonIllinois Supreme Court · 1912
  4. City of Tacoma v. KeiselWashington Supreme Court · 1912
  5. State ex rel. Howie v. Common CouncilSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. City of Duluth v. CervenySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
  2. State Ex Rel. Saperstein v. BassTennessee Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Mayor Common Council of City of Prescott v. RandallArizona Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Mini Mart, Inc. v. City of MinotNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Gartland v. TalbottIdaho Supreme Court · 1951

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

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

Powered by the Exa API