State v. Hovorka
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the municipal court of St. Paul, Hanft, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a trial and conviction of practicing as a pharmacist without a license.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Defendant was charged in the mitnicipal court of the city of St. Paul with practicing as a pharmacist without a license, as required by section 2340, R. L,. 1905, and appealed from a judgment of conviction.
Several questions were raised by the assignments of error and discussed in the briefs, all of which, save one, were on the oral argument in this court .expressly waived by defendant, and the appeal submit-' *250ted upon the sole question whether the statute under which he was prosecuted and convicted is constitutional. So we pass at once to that question.
The solution of the question is not…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Drainage Commission of New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- State ex rel. Powell v. State Medical Examining BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Butler v. Marshall ChambersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- State v. StroscheinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Movers Warehouse, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. City of Little Canada, a Municipal Corporation M.K.P., Inc., a Minnesota CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
- Eastwood Park Amusement Co. v. Mayor of East DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1949
- Paron v. City of ShakopeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Rosenblatt v. California State Board of PharmacyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- State Board of Medical Examiners v. FriedmanTennessee Supreme Court · 1923
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.