Legal Opinion
State v. Diamond
North Dakota Supreme Court
Decided June 1, 1928PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBurr, J.
The defendant was informed against in the county court of Ward county for the violation of § 9240 of the Code as set forth in the Supp. being § 9240 of the Compiled Laws of 1913, as amended by § 2, chapter 222 of the Session Laws of 1917. The information, omitting the formal parts, reads as follows:
“That at said time and place the said Isaak Diamond did wilfully and unlawfully sell publicly and offer and expose for public sale after 10 o’clock a. m. on said day commodities to wit: groceries, not intended to be eaten upon the premises where sold, and not excepted by § 9240 Supplement to 1913…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Tinsley v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Petit v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Williams v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- In Re SumidaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Broadbent v. GibsonUtah Supreme Court · 1943
- State v. HurlimanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
- Gronlund v. Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1948
- Humphrey Chevrolet, Inc. v. City of EvanstonIllinois Supreme Court · 1955
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.