State v. Boehm
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was convicted in the municipal court of Redwood Falls of a violation of Daws 1895, c. 273, providing for the destruction of noxious weeds, and apjpealed to the district court for Redwood county. The case was heard before Webber, J., who denied a motion to dismiss and upon request certified to the supreme court for determination the questions set forth in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Defendant was convicted in the municipal court of Redwood Falls of a violation of Daws 1895, c. 273, providing for the destruction of noxious weeds, and apjpealed to the district court for Redwood county. The case was heard before Webber, J., who denied a motion to dismiss and upon request certified to the supreme court for determination the questions set forth in the opinion. Query, do the words “providing for their destruction” sufficiently express the fact that there is a penalty to be inflicted upon those who fail to comply with the terms of the act? These words taken with the preceding…
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
Upon a criminal complaint against defendant pending in the district court of Redwood county, three questions are certified to this court by the trial judge, to wit:
1. Is chapter 273, p. 653, Laws of Minnesota of 1895, in violation of section 27 of article 4 of the constitution of the state of Minnesota, providing that no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title ?
2. Is the subject-matter of said act expressed in its title?
*3763. Does the complaint state facts showing the commission of a public offense ?
Said complaint is as follows:
The complaint of Herman…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Barbier v. ConnollySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Hennington v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific Railroad v. JacobsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Johnson v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bowman v. Virginia State EntomologistSupreme Court of Virginia · 1920
- Schulte v. FitchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- State v. SharpSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- State v. People's Ice Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- City of Newark v. Garfield Development Corp.Licking County Municipal Court · 1986