Rosewater v. Pinzenscham
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Keysor, J. The opinion contains a statement of the case. The law regards each daily edition as a separate newspaper. (State v. City of South Omaha, 33 Neb., 876; Russell v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 31 N. W. Rep. [Minn.], 692; Seammon v. Oity of Chicago, 40 111., 146 ; Hull v. Chicago, B. & Q. B. Co., 21 Neb., 371.) Fairchild v. Oity of St. Paul, 49 N. W. Rep. [Minn.], 325; Lambert v. Stephen, 29 Neb., 283.
1Opinion of the CourtNokval, C. J.
This is a proceeding in error to reverse the judgment of the district court of Douglas county affirming an order of the board of fire and police commissioners of the city of Omaha granting a saloon license to defendant in error. In December, 1892, Friedrieka Pinzenseham'filed with the secretary of the board of fire and police commissioners of the city of Omaha a petition, signed by the requisite number of qualified petitioners, praying a license to sell intoxicating liquors in said city during the year 1893. Notice of the application in due form was published in all of the daily editions of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Scammon v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
- Hull v. Chicago Burlington & Quincy RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1887
- Lambert v. StevensNebraska Supreme Court · 1890
- State ex rel. Brigham v. City of South OmahaNebraska Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by4 opinions
- Nebraska Children's Home Society v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- Thomas v. ChurchillNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Feil v. Kitchen Bros. Hotel Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1898
- Benson v. OlsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1914