State v. Campbell
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The offence for which the respondent is indicted is, first, selling adulterated milk; second, selling milk from which part of the cream had been removed; third, selling milk from which all the cream had been removed, — in violation of c. 42, Laws of 1883, entitled “An act to regulate the sale and inspection of milk.” Section 5 prohibits the sale of adulterated-milk, or milk to which water or any foreign substance has , been added. Section 6 prohibits tbe sale of milk from which the cream or a part thereof has been removed, as' pure milk. Section 7 regulates the sale of skimmed milk.. Section…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. . WestNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- People v. . CipperlyNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Commonwealth v. EvansMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Commonwealth v. LuscombMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
3Cited by18 opinions
- Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- State v. SchlenkerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- Campbell v. City of ThomasvilleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
- Johnson v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1938
- Monroe v. City of LawrenceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.