Legal Opinion
State v. Nordstrom
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided November 19, 1926No. 25,747PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.
An information was filed by the county attorney of Lac Qui Parle charging the defendant with violation of L. 1925, p. 197, c. 192, the “Blue Sky” law. The court overruled the defendant’s demurrer to the information and certified certain questions.
The title of chapter 192 is as follows:
“An act to prevent fraud in the sale of securities within the State of Minnesota by regulating the offer for sale and sale thereof, by requiring registration of such securities and licensing of persons selling or offering securities for sale, by perpetuating the state securities commission and empowering and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Central Lumber Co. v. South DakotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Merrick Et Al. v. N. W. Halsey & Company Et Al., and the Weis Fibre Container CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Domestic & Foreign Petroleum Co. v. LongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Kadane v. ClarkTexas Supreme Court · 1940
- Kerst v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Atwood v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1938
- State v. PehrsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.