State v. Gitchell
Supreme Court of Vermont
Complaint for violation of an ordinance of the City of Montpelier, brought to the Montpelier City Court. Plea, not guilty. Trial by court, Harvey, City Judge. Judgment that respondent would be guilty if the ordinance were valid, but that the ordinance is void, and respondent is discharged. The State appealed. The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the CourtHasblton, J.
This is a complaint for a violation of an ordinance of the City of Montpelier, heard before E. M. Harvey, City Judge. The judge held that the respondent was guilty of the offence charged unless the ordinance is void; but he adjudged that the ordinance is void and that the respondent be discharged on two grounds, namely: that the charter of the city did not authorize the ordinance, and further that the ordinance is an unreasonable interference with property rights, and therefore not a valid exercise of the police power. The State was allowed an exception. If the ordinance is invalid on any…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. BallinSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Heiskell v. Mayor & City CouncilCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1886
- Brown v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Barnert v. Mayor of PatersonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1886
- City of North Platte v. North Platte Water-Works Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- E. B. & A. C. Whiting Co. v. City of BurlingtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1934
- Frischer & Co. v. Bakelite CorporationCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
- Frischer & Co. v. Bakelite CorporationCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930