Legal Opinion

State v. Suick

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1928PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.

Sec. 165.01 of the Statutes of 1925 is known as the prohibition act. Sub. (32) thereof relates to penalties for violation of the act. After prescribing a penalty for a first offense it provides that “for a second or subsequent offense (the offender) shall be fined in addition to the costs of the action not less than two hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, and be imprisoned in the county jail not less than one month, nor more than one year.” In Faull v. State, 178 Wis. 66, 189 N. W. 274, it was held that the term “offense” as used in this statute meant conviction, so that the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Faull v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
  2. State v. Honora ConwaySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1897
  3. State v. LangSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1874
  4. State v. FaganSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1887

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Caminetti v. Imperial Mutual Life Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1943
  2. Neibling v. TerrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1944
  3. Kravis v. HockSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1947
  4. State Ex Rel. Clark v. AdamsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Brozosky v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928

16 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