State v. Amor & Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Criminal complaint was made to the municipal court of Minneapolis charging defendant with carrying on its undertaking business at specified premises without first obtaining a permit from the city council so to do.
Read the full summary
Criminal complaint was made to the municipal court of Minneapolis charging defendant with carrying on its undertaking business at specified premises without first obtaining a permit from the city council so to do. A warrant was issued, defendant was arrested, tried in the municipal court before Reed, J., and found guilty as charged and fined $100. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment and from an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHalla ai, J.
Defendant is engaged in the undertaking business in Minneapolis. Prior to March 1, 1922, it conducted its business at 829 Second Avenue South and had a permit from the city council to do so. It applied to the city council for a permit to conduct its business at 2300 Hennepin avenue. The permit was refused. Defendant nevertheless conducted its business at 2300 Hennepin Avenue and this prosecution was commenced, charging defendant with operating said business without a permit from the city council. Defendant was convicted and takes this appeal.
1. An ordinance of the city of Minneapolis provides…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fischer v. St. LouisSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- State v. DirnbergerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- State v. RosensteinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
3Cited by13 opinions
- The Alexander Co. v. City of OwatonnaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
- State Ex Rel. v. HoughtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- State ex rel. Beery v. HoughtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- State Ex Rel. Remick v. ClousingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
- Crescent Oil Co. v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.