Legal Opinion

Damiano v. Burge

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 24, 1972No. 25517PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

The question here is plaintiff’s eligibility for an employee’s liquor license from the Kansas City, Missouri Department of Liquor Control. The facts and the legal issues have been fully stipulated by the parties.

In 1938, plaintiff was indicted by a federal grand jury on several counts. Plaintiff pleaded guilty on Count I, which alleged a conspiracy to violate federal tax laws involving the sale and manufacture of intoxicating liquors. Pursuant to plaintiff’s plea, he was found guilty and was sentenced to a reformatory for one year and a day.

Thereafter, plaintiff was inducted into the United…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Ex Parte GarlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  2. Knote v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  3. State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. IrbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
  4. State v. PageSupreme Court of Kansas · 1899
  5. State Ex Rel. Cloud v. State Election BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. BachmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. In Re AbramsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
  3. Guastello v. Department of Liquor ControlSupreme Court of Missouri · 1976
  4. Theodoro v. Department of Liquor ControlSupreme Court of Missouri · 1975
  5. Tony W. Robertson v. Eric K. ShinsekiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2013

5 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