Legal Opinion

Gardenhire v. State

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 1923No. Criminal No. 576PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.

— The appellant appeals from a conviction of violating section 9 of Ordinance No. 70 of the town (now city) of Yuma, entitled:

“An ordinance regulating the sale of milk, cream, condensed or evaporated milk or cream in the town of Yuma, and providing for the inspection of milk, cream, condensed or evaporated milk or cream, dairies, cows, cow-stables, milk-houses, milk vessels and vehicles.”

The ordinance consists of nineteen sections, and has for its object the securing for the inhabitants of the corporation of a clean, pure and wholesome quality of milk and milk products. The duty of is*16suing…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Isenhour v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Gundling v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Ottawa v. CareySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  4. Ex Parte JohnsonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1921
  5. State v. SchlenkerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Associated Dairy Products Co. v. PageArizona Supreme Court · 1949
  2. City of Phoenix v. Arizona Sash, Door & Glass Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1956
  3. City of Phoenix v. BreuningerArizona Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Shaffer v. AlltCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1976
  5. City of Flagstaff v. Associated Dairy Products Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1953

5 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