Legal Opinion

State v. Mullenhoff

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided March 12, 1888PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Appeal from Montgomery District Court. — How. C. P. Looebourow, Judge. The defendant was indicted and convicted of maintaining a nuisance by keeping a place for the sale of intoxicating liquors in violation of law, and he appeals to this court.

1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.

i Intoxicating ' liquors: per-terminated by repeal of law. I. The defendant was a member of a firm, doing business as druggists, composed of 0. W. -®ne5 a registered pharmacist, and himself. He was not a registered pharmacist. The firm held a permit to sell intoxicating liquors . 51 x under the law m force prior to the taking effect of chapter eighty-three, Acts Twenty-first General Assembly. When that statute took effect, and the sales for which defendant is indicted were made, the time had not expired for which the permit was limited according to its terms. Subsequent to making these sales,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. HayesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
  2. State v. CourtneySupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
  3. State v. NoelSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. State v. HurdSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
  2. State Ex Relator McNamara v. ClarkCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1915
  3. State v. BurrisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
  4. State ex rel. Kelley v. BonnellIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  5. State v. BoomerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897

13 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