Legal Opinion

Croker v. Board of Excise Commissioners

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided June 11, 1906PublishedCited by 2 opinions

On application for allowance of certiorari.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered'by

Pitney, J.

A rule having been made requiring the excise commissioners to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not be allowed to review an ordinance passed by them January 1st, 1906, relating to inns, taverns and saloons, and the sale of intoxicating liquor, in the city of Camden, proofs have been taken which show that Croker, the applicant, is a resident and taxpayer in the city of Camden, and is regularly licensed to conduct a retail liquor business in that city. It also appears that he has been arrested for an alleged violation of the ordinance…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McNulty v. ToofCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
  2. Decker v. SargeantIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Unger v. Inhabitants of FanwoodSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1903
  4. Bakman v. Hackensack Improvement CommissionSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1904

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. City of Tucson v. StewartArizona Supreme Court · 1935
  2. L. A. Thompson Scenic Railway Co. v. McCabeMichigan Supreme Court · 1920

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API