City of Shreveport v. Nejin

73 So. 313, 140 La. 509, 1916 La. LEXIS 1697
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided December 11, 1916·No. No. 22213·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PROVOSTY, J.

Defendant was convicted of keeping a “blind tiger” under the same ordinance which was upheld in City of Shreveport v. Maroun, 134 La. 490, 64 South. 388, and was declared in same city v. Knowles, 136 La. 770, 67 South. 824, to have been repealed by the statute upon the same subject only in so far as the two were inconsistent. No charge of inconsistency or repeal is made in the present case; but the charter authority of the city to adopt the ordinance is again challenged. We see no reason for departing from the views expressed on that point in the Maroun Case, supra, and incidentally approved in the Knowles Case, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

MONROE, C. J., dissents, and hands down reasons. See 73 South. 313.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

City of Shreveport v. Nejin, 73 So. 313, 140 La. 509, 1916 La. LEXIS 1697 (La. 1916).

73 So. 313 (City of Shreveport v. Nejin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gambrell v. Bridges
96 So. 2d 178 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1956)
City of Shreveport v. Price
77 So. 883 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1918)
City of Shreveport v. Nejin
73 So. 996 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1917)
City of Shreveport v. Emile
73 So. 320 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1916)