State ex rel. Gazzalo v. Hudson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Application for mandamus.
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This is a proceeding by mandamus, the object of which is to compel the respondent, who is collector of the city of St. Louis, to issue a dram-shop license to the relator. The questions we now have to consider are raised by a motion to quash the alternative writ.
1. The first ground of this motion is that the writ does not state facts sufficient to entitle the relator to the relief which he seeks. The writ states generally that the relator has complied with all the provisions of the statutes of the state, and of the Revised Ordinances of the city, relating to the issuing of dram-shop licenses.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Austin v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
- State ex rel. Hamilton v. EverettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- State v. WoolerySupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. Parker Distilling Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- State ex rel. Campbell v. HeegeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- State ex rel. Crandall v. McIntoshSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- State ex rel. Goodnow v. Police CommissionersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- State ex rel. Brown v. StiffMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.