Legal Opinion

People v. Ringsted

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 1892PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Exceptions before judgment from Muskegon. (Diekerman, J.) Respondent was convicted of failing to keep his saloon closed on Sunday. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, C. J.

The respondent keeps an hotel in the city of Muskegon. Within his hotel building he has a saloon, connected with the hotel office by a door. The washroom also has a door opening into the saloon. Back of the saloon is a hallway, into which the office and the saloon open by doors. A door leads from the hallway out of the building in the rear; and in the hallway, a distance of 10 or 12 feet from the saloon door, is a door leading into a little room, called the “ Greenroom.”

The respondent was convicted of the offense of keeping his saloon open, and not closed, on Sunday, the 11th day of October,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. People v. CoxMichigan Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Brummitt v. ChaneyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1969
  2. State v. BinnardWashington Supreme Court · 1899
  3. People v. BoydMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
  4. People v. LakerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1967
  5. People v. WhippleMichigan Supreme Court · 1896

7 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