State v. Sugarman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendants were tried and convicted in the municipal court of Minneapolis, before Bardwell, J., and a jury, of a violation of the city ordinance mentioned in the opinion. From an order denying their motion for a new trial and from judgments against each defendant,, they appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
The defendants were convicted in the municipal court of the' city of Minneapolis for a violation of this city ordinance: “Three- or more persons shall not stand together or near each other in any street or on any foot walk or sidewalk in said city, so as to obstruct the free passage for foot passengers, and any person or persons so-standing shall move on immediately after request to do so made by the mayor, chief of police, or any police officer or watchman.”
The appeal questions: (1) The'validity of the ordinance; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence; and (3) certain rulings on the trial and…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Davis v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- State ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- In re FrazerMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Commonwealth v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Anderson v. City of WellingtonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1888
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- State v. KuhlmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- Sverkerson v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
- State v. DirnbergerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Pugh v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916
- Minneapolis Street Railway Co. v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.