Legal Opinion
People v. Pennock
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided September 6, 1940No. Docket No. 110, Calendar Nos. 40,795-40,802PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNorth, J.
Defendant, Leonard Pennock, and others were charged with violating sections 1 and 2 of ordinance No. 85-D of the city of Detroit. The ordinance is printed in the margin hereof. * On trial without a jury defendants were severally convicted and sentence imposed on each. They have appealed, and by stipulation the combined appeals are submitted on one record.
In brief, section 1 of the ordinance makes it unlawful to display or expose for sale in the city of Detroit any contraceptive device or any prophylactic rubber goods or other articles of like character or to advertise them for sale in any…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cady v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- People Ex Rel. Armstrong v. Warden of City PrisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Rohde v. Wayne Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
- McConnell v. City of KnoxvilleTennessee Supreme Court · 1937
- Bryant v. Common CouncilMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
3Cited by6 opinions
- Kalita v. City of DetroitMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975
- People v. VickeryMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
- Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. City of CadillacMichigan Court of Appeals · 1974
- People v. LlewellynMichigan Supreme Court · 1977
- People v. LlewellynMichigan Supreme Court · 1977
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.