Legal Opinion

Slezenger v. Liquor Control Commission

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1946No. Docket No. 56, Calendar No. 43,296PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtButzel, C. J.

Plaintiff, after a hearing before the Michigan liquor control commission followed by a revocation of his license, filed a bill in the circuit court for the county of Macomb in order to set aside the revocation. He claimed that the hearing was conducted in an arbitrary manner, that plaintiff was prevented from presenting a full and complete defense, that hearsay testimony was admitted at the hearing, and that the hearing was not limited to law and facts. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based upon section 20 of the liquor control act * (Comp. Laws Supp. 1945, §9209-35, Stat. Ann. 1945 Cum.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Kundinger v. City of SaginawMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Board of Education v. State Tax CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1939

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Chester v. EinarsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Diggs v. State Board of Embalmers & Funeral DirectorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Norman v. BARBER EXAMINERS BOARDMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Glicker v. Michigan Liquor Control CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1947
  5. Martin v. Liquor Control CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1946

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API