State v. Barge
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was convicted in tbe municipal court of Minneapolis, Kerr, J., of a violation of the ordinance set forth in tbe opinion. From an order denying a motion for a new trial and also from the judgment of conviction, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
The common council of tbe city of Minneapolis is given, by tbe charter of tbe city, power to “license and regulate * * * all persons vending, dealing in or disposing of spirituous, vinous, fermented or malt liquors”; also, “full power and authority to make, ordain, publish, enforce, alter, amend or repeal all such ordinances for tbe government and good order of tbe city, for tbe suppression of vice and intemperance, and for tbe prevention of crime, as it shall deem expedient.” Sp. Laws 1881, p. 434, § 5. On April 13, 1900, tbe common council of tbe city passed an ordinance, tbe here material…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- In re WilsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- State v. HarrisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Hantzch v. MassoltSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Knobloch v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Ex Parte RoquemoreCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1910
- Baart v. MartinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Ex Parte MuckenfussCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1908
- Power v. NordstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Sandys v. WilliamsOregon Supreme Court · 1905
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.